ANY LIBERTARIANS HERE?

Posts

Decky
I'm a dog pirate
19645
author=Karsuman
author=Despain
* self-righteous hateful rhetoric designed to bait people into arguments, even though the statements themselves suggest that the user: A) has either a lack of understanding of the subject matter or is intentionally feigning ignorance, B) will conveniently ignore and dismiss relevant information said by others, and C) prop up his own opinions by stating trite, exaggerated nonsense whilst saying others are exaggerating their own claims. *
author=KingArthur
* short-sighted uncaring bullshit that individuals believe in for only as long as it remains convenient, but abandon as soon as it affects them negatively *

A+ material guys.

This topic reminds me of this comic, actually:


Despain: I overreacted a bit (check out the War on Politics thread).

On topic: I'm not a libertarian, but if I were, I would be the Briefly Tempting.

Though I'll admit: the older I get, the more conservative I get. But I'd say I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative, like Kentona.
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
Hey Max. You said you're socially conservative and fiscally liberal. That blows my mind and I am genuinely curious as to why. FYI, I'm not holding it against you, I'm keeping an open mind on the matter. Please indulge us my oppositely-aligned friend.


To tell the truth my social and fiscal views are both really complicated and nuanced and bizarre and do not adhere to any partisan line. I'm also fundamentally undecided on the vast majority of things due to a lack of knowledge. I'm politically agnostic! But...

I agree with almost everything that Bill Maher says, generally speaking, and he's pretty far left all around. I don't hate religion anywhere near as virulently as he does, I'm an agnostic, not an anti-theist and I think that faith is fine, and only organized religion is problematic.

I'm not actually socially conservative, I'm just of the opinion that (most) social issues don't matter (as much as fiscal and foreign policy issues). I come down with the conservatives on these (questionably) social issues.

* I am for the death penalty (but I also think our criminal justice system needs massive reform before we can consider implementing it).
* I am against abortion, but not absolutely or all the time. I just think that abortion should have a justification or a reason beyond "welp I didn't want a kid". Of course, this is not a deeply held belief. If I got my girlfriend pregnant, my response wouldn't be "THOU ABSOLUTELY MAYST NOT ABORTST THIS BABY, FOR THAT WOULD BE WRONG" it would be more like..."do whatever you want, honey, and I will support you all the way". But generally speaking, I don't think that abortion should happen without a legitimate medical reason or another justification. But that's still far to the left of some people who are actually socially conservative.
* I don't actually care about gay marriages or gays in the military, I don't actually care about gays at all one way or another, and I just wish both sides would shut the fuck up about it. (It would be fair to observe that if I was gay, gay marriage would matter more to me, but I'm not sure that's true. If I was gay I still wouldn't fucking want to get married.)

Honestly, I think that the neoconservatives and the religious right use these social issues as a smokescreen to keep the discussion from the real issues, like the war that George W. Bush started over completely and utterly false pretenses and lies, etcetera. I hate how everyone in the country knows about it, so much so that we've made several mainstream hollywood movies about it in the past year, but there has still been absolutely no comeuppance or consequences for his fucking lies.

And I think that social liberals buy into this smokescreen by giving a shit about issues like gay marriage that really just don't matter as much to the future or fate of the country as a whole.

I am completely undecided about gun control.

I abhor the concept of political correctness I am completely in favor of free speech all the time, with the sole possible exception of the Westboro Baptist Church, who are basically terrorists and fuck those people.

As for financial issues, honestly I feel unqualified to discuss most financial issues. Honestly you work in the finance sector so you'd probably run circles around me as far as factual knowledge and I don't want to get into that kind of asymmetrical debate.

I guess my fiscal views are as follows, though:

* Trickle-down economics are bullshit, rich people with more money don't automatically create jobs. For the most part they just keep their money.
* A flat-tax is the worst fucking idea ever, because the poor already pay too much in this country and a flat-tax would just make it worse. I say this as one of the poor.
* The healthcare industry is hideously corrupt and we need a better system. I support everything Obama was trying to do, and I think he probably didn't go far enough. But I really don't want to get into this. All I can say with certainty is that the way we had it before Obama was HORRIBLE and that it now seems to be VERY SLIGHTLY LESS HORRIBLE. I say this as a person with a serious, life-long illness with barely-efficacious treatments that I will be completely unable to afford without healthcare.

But I mean...really...I hate politics. I hate politicians. They're all scheming two-faced liars and they all will be until our culture expects anything different or more from them, and enforces those expectations. The two-party system and campaign finance are also a fucking joke. In short, I don't even like talking about this shit.
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
Addition: I'm not posting this for people to pick it apart, and these aren't meant to be airtight arguments or anything. I'm just clarifying some of my political beliefs for the curious.
author=Max McGee
The healthcare industry is hideously corrupt and we need a better system. I support everything Obama was trying to do, and I think he probably didn't go far enough.
You'll regret those words when it takes effect in 2014.
Well, actual recognition of "wow, this is fucking broken" may not happen for a few years after that.
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
Let me clarify: I don't know enough about the issues to wholeheartedly support Obama's reforms. I know that they helped me a lot in the short term. As for the long term, I don't know, all I know for sure is that the way it is now and the way it has been (healthcare as a for-profit industry) is fucked up.

Also why would I regret those words? I mean, they won't in any way shape or form have caused whatever healthcare apocalypse you imagine will happen. They won't have effected anything at all, lol.
Here's a cut and paste of an email I got six months ago that sums up the highlights of what sucks in the "Obamacare" bill.

Please pass this on to your friends...democrats and republicans, everyone should know why Pelosi wanted to hurry up and pass this Bill before anyone could read it.

READ PAGE #58 AND #59 TWICE IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT THE FIRST TIME. YOU DECIDE?
How much power do we want our government to have over us?
This is the most succinct exposure to Obamacare that I have seen and everyone (including Democrats) should be up in arms.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OUR REPRESENTATIVES DON'T READ WHAT THEY SIGN.

Obamacare Highlighted by Page Number

THE CARE BILL HB3200
THIS IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.
Judge Kithil of Marble Falls , TX
- HB3200 highlighted pages most egregious
Please read this... especially the reference to pages 58 & 59
JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH? Judge Kithil then goes on:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."
Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls, Texas
All of the above should give you the point blank ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare. Please send this information on to all of your email contacts.



I used a spoiler tag since it's different from the thread topic.
Decky
I'm a dog pirate
19645
The electric fund transfers thing is alarming. Overdrafts ahoy!
author=Dyhalto
Here's a cut and paste of an email I got six months ago that sums up the highlights of what sucks in the "Obamacare" bill.

Please pass this on to your friends...democrats and republicans, everyone should know why Pelosi wanted to hurry up and pass this Bill before anyone could read it.

READ PAGE #58 AND #59 TWICE IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT THE FIRST TIME. YOU DECIDE?
How much power do we want our government to have over us?
This is the most succinct exposure to Obamacare that I have seen and everyone (including Democrats) should be up in arms.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OUR REPRESENTATIVES DON'T READ WHAT THEY SIGN.

Obamacare Highlighted by Page Number

THE CARE BILL HB3200
THIS IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.
Judge Kithil of Marble Falls , TX
- HB3200 highlighted pages most egregious
Please read this... especially the reference to pages 58 & 59
JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH? Judge Kithil then goes on:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."
Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls, Texas
All of the above should give you the point blank ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare. Please send this information on to all of your email contacts.



I used a spoiler tag since it's different from the thread topic.

I did a quick web search to see if any of that was true, and found this:

http://coffeebear.net/2009/11/22/h-b-3200/

I'm not saying people should or shouldn't support the bill, but it is disturbing that some people take e-mails like that at face value without doing any research first (I'm not saying Dyhalto did that, as he received the e-mail six months ago and probably did look into the bill to form his own opinions since then). Messages like this one keep language vague and alarming in order to win people over to a specific way of thinking before they have all the facts.

Granted, I'm not sure how many people have actually read the bill in the first place.
Well, lucid, you got me somewhat. I can't verify every single point. I only posted the email as a quickie response, so you're free to berate me :O
To be honest, I've only ever been interested in the parts making it mandatory to purchase insurance from private companies, and the "real-time access to an individual's bank account" part, which I could have verified at one point (not about to skim through again for citations).

I think we've all experienced the mandatory insurance from private companies thing with our Auto Insurance. Granted, that was brought in back in the good old days when regulators did, and still do, their jobs. But given the regulatory incompetence of the last 5-10 years, it wouldn't be a stretch to forecast a price-fixing cartel.
Allowing the IRS to access your bank account when you catch a cold opens a major can of worms. An amendment or two, and you might see "Since we're in here anyway, we'll collect that fee/bill/ticket/etc you owe".

Also, the email I got is a year and 6 months old, not just 6 months. I don't have the year in the dated file name.
author=Dyhalto
Well, lucid, you got me somewhat. I can't verify every single point. I only posted the email as a quickie response, so you're free to berate me :O
To be honest, I've only ever been interested in the parts making it mandatory to purchase insurance from private companies, and the "real-time access to an individual's bank account" part, which I could have verified at one point (not about to skim through again for citations).

I think we've all experienced the mandatory insurance from private companies thing with our Auto Insurance. Granted, that was brought in back in the good old days when regulators did, and still do, their jobs. But given the regulatory incompetence of the last 5-10 years, it wouldn't be a stretch to forecast a price-fixing cartel.
Allowing the IRS to access your bank account when you catch a cold opens a major can of worms. An amendment or two, and you might see "Since we're in here anyway, we'll collect that fee/bill/ticket/etc you owe".

Also, the email I got is a year and 6 months old, not just 6 months. I don't have the year in the dated file name.

Except if you were to actually read that section it says nothing of the sort.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

Show me where it says the government can take money from you when you are sick.

If you look in section 164 (which the link Lucidstillness guesses the e-mail is talking about) it does use the phrase "real-time", except that it says patients should know how much they will be responsible for in a real-time or near real-time manner. It also goes on to allow for electronic transactions and to help set standards for those transactions (administrative and clinical transactions - not financial). There is also this: (C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice; which basically means they are allowed to use electronic transfer of funds, you know, so you don't have to mail them a check.

Don't use chain e-mails as your argument. You need to actually read about and research things before you form opinions about them.
I screwed this one up big time.
My original intention was to drop a quick infodump on Max with what I assumed was still relevant. I didn't bother to double check the status of HR3200, which is actually dead and history.
Sorry Max. The 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act', HR3950, is the real one. I haven't looked into it, but I haven't heard anything positive besides "Healthcare! Yay!" similiar to what you first posted.

ankylo, for what it's worth...
SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.
(a) STANDARDS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall adopt and regularly update standards consistent with the goals described in paragraph (2).
(2) GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.—The goals for standards under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall—
...
(D) enable the real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;

(4) REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC STANDARDS.—The standards under this section shall be developed, adopted and enforced so as to—
...
(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;

Had this bill passed as was, the next step would have been for the Secretary guy to decide how to interpret it, and possibly a court challenge afterwards. We could have been talking about the government debiting your account while you're having emergency surgery, or it could've just been "Paper or Plastic?" as you leave the hospital with your family.
Were you really looking for "(a) Government shall have real-time access to the beneficiary's bank account whenever they feel like it. Tough shit."?
author=Max McGee
I abhor the concept of political correctness I am completely in favor of free speech all the time, with the sole possible exception of the Westboro Baptist Church, who are basically terrorists and fuck those people.

O-ouchie! Actually, I'm assuming the Westboro are different from the baptist church I go to. I have no idea though.
enable the real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service

Look up the word responsibility in a dictionary for me. It doesn't mean banking account! What that sentence says is...when a patient is going for some sort of health care related service, they want to be able to tell them on the spot how much they will be responsible for financially.

enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;

Yes, this means they are authorizing the use of electronic funds transfers for payment. So, like I said in my original post, this means you don't have to mail them a check, they are allowed to accept electronic payments.

Were you really looking for "(a) Government shall have real-time access to the beneficiary's bank account whenever they feel like it. Tough shit."?

Of course not, but there is nothing in the bill that even comes close to that. It doesn't say anything about anyone taking money from your bank account.

It is also good to know that none of this language appears in the bill that was actually passed, and the section in question just talks about whether or not standards can be implemented to help with health care administration.
author=Gourd_Clae
author=Max McGee
I abhor the concept of political correctness I am completely in favor of free speech all the time, with the sole possible exception of the Westboro Baptist Church, who are basically terrorists and fuck those people.
O-ouchie! Actually, I'm assuming the Westboro are different from the baptist church I go to. I have no idea though.
Google them. They're not like any other normal church - baptist or otherwise - that I know of. It's not a slight against baptists as a group, just that particular church. Believe me, they deserve all the hell they get and more - they go and bring it apon themselves. That they claim to be a church is laughable. They're more like a Klan. (See what I did there? See it? Yeah.)

They give churches a bad name. (I pity the kids brought up in that church. They're being taught such ridiculous ideas that will not help them at all when they grow up and go out into the real world. le sigh )
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
They are not Baptists or even Christians at all. Literally they are just a hate group.

With the possible exception of the higher-ups of the Bush II administration, they are some of the most evil living human beings I'm aware of.

Oh shit. Oops. I went and called them human beings.
ankylo, the problem was that "determining the individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service" was litigated ambiguously and the methods were to be left up to the Secretary to codify afterward. Saying that the Department of Obamacare could open your bank account, go "hmmmm...", and decide based on the contents, that is a stretch, I agree.
But stranger legislative things have happened very recently.

author=Max McGee
With the possible exception of the higher-ups of the Bush II administration, they are some of the most evil living human beings I'm aware of.
Nah. Haters are useful idiots and the higher-ups are just war profiteers.
Central bankers are the real cancer on this earth.
harmonic
It's like toothpicks against a tank
4142
author=Dyhalto
Nah. Haters are useful idiots and the higher-ups are just war profiteers.
Central bankers are the real cancer on this earth.


Central bankers and the politicians who get in bed with them. Takes two to tango.
ron paul 2012

vote eugenics
author=KingArthur
oh! what an original political opinion then.
I wouldn't call it original, it's just the result of thinking objectively for myself what the various forms of government require and entail.

Democracy in my opinion only functions when the people are smart and well-informed. If the people are stupid and/or ignorant (and most of the time they are), the next best choice is a constitutional monarchy with a good monarch as that completely eliminates public opinion from the political equation while also limiting the monarch via a constitution.

It's basically deciding who to place the burden of responsibility on: The head of state and government, or the people?

Though Japan's emperor is somewhat similar to the Queen in England, i.e. constitutional monarchy. ?

The two are indeed constitutional monarchies, but the similarities end there.

Japan's emperor holds no actual power or influence, he's just a ceremonial head of state and icon who's there just because of tradition. You could remove the entire royal family of Japan and we wouldn't know the difference even if we were told.

On the other hand, while I admit I'm not too familiar with the UK constitutional monarchy, the monarchs of the UK hold considerable influence on a global scale and, I presume, power beyond that of ceremonial ones. The UK without the monarch would be like a headless chicken, so to speak.

Indeed, it seems you're not too familiar with the UK constitutional monarchy. Just as the Japanese Emperor is merely the ceremonial head of state, the Queen has no real power in Britain or the Commonwealth. In a technical, legal sense, she can bypass parliament to declare war, amongst other powers, but she never actually utilises these powers without formal backing from parliament - and would probably get ousted if she did.

As for Libertarianism, there aren't many British Libertarians. I am certainly not one of them. I like my National Health Service, comprehensive education and all the other public services that I utilise regularly. I think you'd have to be either very silly or very rich to want to privatise all those things.
author=Gale
As for Libertarianism, there aren't many British Libertarians. I am certainly not one of them. I like my National Health Service, comprehensive education and all the other public services that I utilise regularly. I think you'd have to be either very silly or very rich to want to privatise all those things.

libertarianism in its broadest sense doesn't exclude any of these. the problem is that the term has been monopolised by expressly 'right' (in economic terms) groups like the Libertarian Party in the US and as such libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism don't really get a look in. it's a gaping hole in the traditional (but deeply flawed) 'left-right' political dichotomy. a good demonstration of why this doesn't work is to map historical political figures to their respective places in that traditional 'left-right' model. on the left you have stalin, pol pot, nelson mandela, gandhi and the current dalai lama. on the right you have hitler, margaret thatcher, ronald reagan, milton friedman, ayn rand and the republican, democratic and libertarian parties in the US. do you see the problem here? economic and social policies have to be separated as different axes, otherwise it's a useless reading.