Posted on 09/22/2017 8:35:23 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Who's right — President Donald Trump and Sen. Bill Cassidy, or late-night host Jimmy Kimmel?
None has really captured the complexity of the debate over who might lose insurance protections in the latest Republican health care bill. But of the three, the TV guy is the hardest to refute.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
I took a second read at what you posted, and it raises questions towards your motive in this debate. It's quite a radical rebuttal against republicanism. Is this what you truly believe or are you taunting me?
One cannot by signing a contract, bind someone else to an ‘agreement.’
This is exactly what representative government does. Representatives declared Independence and it bound the country to rebel from England. Representatives signed the Constitution and it bound the country to a hierarchy of governments.
Our representatives make law that we are obligated to follow; our representatives select the President that we are obligated to accept; our selected President and Senate select the Courts that we are obligated to abide by. Are you rejecting this to make a point?
The result is that the constitution, rather than being a brilliant, useful valid contract, was an insane attempt by a handful of men to unilaterally subject millions of other people to the control of a machine of aggression, in exchange for no guarantee of anything.
I will leave this last statement that you cited in rebuttal to me as your true sentiment, unless you wish to personally reject it in further debate.
-PJ
How does a community thrive when each member feels that the civic agreement that we stop at red lights as a condition of living here doesn't apply to *me*?
Don't I "owe" it to the other members of my community to stop at red lights, too?
The state is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The bigger, more powerful, and more authoritarian the state, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success.
The owner of the road has the right to make rules about its use. If the road has no owner, then rational usage rules will evolve naturally, in the same way the rules of natural language do:
The Production of Security => https://mises.org/library/production-security-0
The Machinery Of Freedom => http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
The Myth Of Benevolent Central Authority => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA8w--EiH5k
The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey => http://www.amazon.com/The-Problem-Political-Authority-Examination/dp/1137281650
The Tradition of Spontaneous Order => http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/LtrLbrty/bryTSO.html
The Evolution of Cooperation => http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Cooperation-Revised-Edition/dp/0465005640
The Evolution of Cooperation provides valuable insights into the age-old question of whether unforced cooperation is ever possible. Widely praised and much-discussed, this classic book explores how cooperation can emerge in a world of self-seeking egoists-whether superpowers, businesses, or individuals-when there is no central authority to police their actions. The problem of cooperation is central to many different fields. Robert Axelrod recounts the famous computer tournaments in which the “cooperative” program Tit for Tat recorded its stunning victories, explains its application to a broad spectrum of subjects, and suggests how readers can both apply cooperative principles to their own lives and teach cooperative principles to others.
The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge => http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062296000/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0062296000&linkCode=as2&tag=thewaspos09-20&linkId=WBYE3JE5DYBGJ45V
The New York Times bestselling author of The Rational Optimist and Genome returns with a fascinating, brilliant argument for evolution that definitively dispels a dangerous, widespread myth: that we can command and control our world.The Evolution of Everything is about bottom-up order and its enemy, the top-down twitch—the endless fascination human beings have for design rather than evolution, for direction rather than emergence. Drawing on anecdotes from science, economics, history, politics and philosophy, Matt Ridley’s wide-ranging, highly opinionated opus demolishes conventional assumptions that major scientific and social imperatives are dictated by those on high, whether in government, business, academia, or morality. On the contrary, our most important achievements develop from the bottom up. Patterns emerge, trends evolve. Just as skeins of geese form Vs in the sky without meaning to, and termites build mud cathedrals without architects, so brains take shape without brain-makers, learning can happen without teaching and morality changes without a plan.
Although we neglect, defy and ignore them, bottom-up trends shape the world. The growth of technology, the sanitation-driven health revolution, the quadrupling of farm yields so that more land can be released for nature—these were largely emergent phenomena, as were the Internet, the mobile phone revolution, and the rise of Asia. Ridley demolishes the arguments for design and effectively makes the case for evolution in the universe, morality, genes, the economy, culture, technology, the mind, personality, population, education, history, government, God, money, and the future.
As compelling as it is controversial, authoritative as it is ambitious, Ridley’s stunning perspective will revolutionize the way we think about our world and how it works.
Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life => http://www.amazon.com/Private-Governance-Creating-Economic-Social/dp/0199365164/ref=sr_1_1
From the first stock markets of Amsterdam,London, and New York to the billions of electronic commerce transactions today, privately produced and enforced economic regulations are more common, more effective, and more promising than commonly considered._In Private Governance, prominent economist Edward Stringham presents case studies of the various forms of private enforcement, self-governance, or self-regulation among private groups or individuals that fill a void that government enforcement cannot. Through analytical narratives the book provides a close examination of the world's first stock markets, key elements of which were unenforceable by law; the community of Celebration, Florida, and other private communities that show how public goods can be bundled with land and provided more effectively; and the millions of credit-card transactions that occur daily and are regulated by private governance. Private Governance ultimately argues that while potential problems of private governance, such as fraud, are pervasive, so are the solutions it presents, and that much of what is orderly in the economy can be attributed to private groups and individuals. With meticulous research, Stringham demonstrates that private governance is a far more common source of order than most people realize, and that private parties have incentives to devise different mechanisms for eliminating unwanted behavior.
Private Governance documents numerous examples of private order throughout history to illustrate how private governance is more resilient to internal and external pressure than is commonly believed. Stringham discusses why private governance has economic and social advantages over relying on government regulations and laws, and explores the different mechanisms that enable private governance, including sorting, reputation, assurance, and other bonding mechanisms. Challenging and rigorously-written, Private Governance will make a compelling read for those with an interest in economics, political philosophy, and the history of current Wall Street regulations.
A Spontaneous Order: The Capitalist Case for a Stateless Society => https://mises.org/library/spontaneous-order-capitalist-case-stateless-society [Available as a free .pdf]
A Spontaneous Order: The Capitalist Case for a Stateless Society is an astonishingly concise, rigorous, and accessible presentation of anarcho-capitalist ideals. It covers a wide range of topics including: Money and Banking, Monopolies and Cartels, Insurance, Health Care, Law, Security, Poverty, Education, Environmentalism, and more! To enjoy this compelling read requires no previous political, philosophical, or economic knowledge as all uncommon concepts are defined and explained in a simple yet uncompromising manner. Take heed, this work is liable to cause radical paradigm shifts in your understanding of both the State and Free Market.
In Defence of Chaos: The Chaology of Politics, Economics and Human Action => https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Chaos-Chaology-Politics-Economics/dp/1935942069
Jeff (Berwick) interviews author of the book 'In Defence of Chaos: The Chaology of Politics, Economics and Human Action' L K Samuels, topics include: social chaology, chaos theory as regards to government and libertarianism, chaos is necessary and good, order is repetition, Hayek's spontaneous order, Austrian economics, initial conditions, the butterfly effect, little things can lead to big things, swarm intelligence, organisation in the absence of central control, artificial intelligence, genetic algorithms, independent action allows change and much more..." => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzssVHoD4r0
Well RATagandist morons....I'll answer that question.
Q: Who might lose insurance protection?
A:
1) Those RAT parasites who are not paying for "health insurance" the subsidized premium and MediCaid recipients (not insurance at all, but rather medical welfare)
-And-
2) Those who have deliberately destroyed their health and have not yet purchased health insurance. Queers, smokers and 400 pounders.(the lauded and martyred pre-x class, mostly AIDS patients)
Of course they don't even have insurance, so they will only lose the ability to get the same low premium rates as healthy working people.
the TV guy is the hardest to refute.
That's because there is currently no debate forum where he can be prevented from talking over, or cutting off, somebody who knows what they're talking about. Even I know all the RAT talking points, and that is all he has.
He certainly has no esoteric knowledge of insurance.
So why hasn't this utopia already naturally arisen?
The Evolution of Cooperation => http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Cooperation-Revised-Edition/dp/0465005640
...this classic book explores how cooperation can emerge in a world of self-seeking egoists-whether superpowers, businesses, or individuals-when there is no central authority to police their actions.
I take it, then, that you disagree with Trump's speech at the United Nations when he said that he will pursues America' interests first, as should all the other leaders pursue their own nations' interests first, and thereby the whole world will become stronger?
If you've read all the books you cited, then you are definitely more well-read than I. The excerpts, to me, seem very utopian and not very practical.
Regarding the repeated phrase "central control," I'd say that our current federal government, after decades of power grabs against the 10th amendment, have resulted in more central control than was intended, needed, or wanted. However, it currently is what it is. I'd like to see the states take back much of that control, but I don't think it's reasonable to do away with the concepts of states entirely, as I do not believe that self-governing communes will naturally arise where everyone naturally finds their reciprocal place within it. There will always be misfits, outcasts, rebels, and non-conformers who want the benefits of the society without putting in the effort to sustain it. The "state" is what enforces the rules in those situations, so as to keep the relationships among the conforming members civil.
-PJ
You: “So why hasn’t this utopia already naturally arisen?”
Because we collectively create our society based on what we believe to be necessary. That’s why “our current federal government, after decades of power grabs against the 10th amendment, have resulted in more central control than was intended, needed, or wanted.”
In other words, your question is a double-edged sword. But it cuts you far more severely. The state — and its excessive power — are natural consequences of a) power dynamics, especially when there’s a monopoly provider of justice and security, and b) our collective belief that having a monopoly provider of justice and security is necessary, and therefore legitimate.
You can’t create an atheistic society by destroying all the church buildings and imprisoning all the priests. You can only do it by converting a critical mass of people to atheism. The same principle applies to a free society: No Constitution or system of government can make a free society. Only a critical mass of people deeply committed to the beliefs and way of life that enables, creates and supports a free society can do that.
Neither one, really. Government has no business in health care.
-PJ
Yes. There is a difference between dual federalism where states address needs as they see fit (intended by founders) and the regulatory top-down “federalism” that is shoved down our throats by an overreaching national government.
Whether state governments have a role in health care is a tenth amendment question.
Not when the money is coming from the federal government. Trumpcare is Obamacare with a different name. Not as bad in some respects. But still nowhere near being a responsibility of the federal government.
Oh, yes, I agree with you on the federal monies part. The ideal plan would be to have the dollars stay in the states and never go to D.C.
Yet I still maintain the “block grant” idea is closer to the founder’s vision. This was the idea endorsed by Reagan’s “New Federalism” principle.
A step in the right direction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.