Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)". .
They key difference between "right to counsel"/"right to a jury" and "right to healthcare" is that the first 2 are NOT a right that people have.
You do NOT have the right to legal counsel. Instead The government cannot Try you unless they give you legal counsel. The government cannot Try you unless they give you a jury trial.
If the government never puts you on trial, and never arrests you, then you have No right to a jury/lawyers.
It is the government's Lack of rights (to just arrest and jail you) that is guaranteed.
In that sense there is a "right to healthcare", if the government wants to put you in prison, then "no cruel and unusual punishment" means they have to give you healthcare.
Sorry, but they are rights. They are defined as such in the US Bill of Rights. The fact that they can be evoked in specific cases does not change this fact (nor does it change the validity of the analogy, which is why I mentioned them in the first place).
They can Only be invoked in specific cases and can only be invoked to Stop the government from doing something, not to force the government to do something.
The right to free speech does not mean the government has to pay for your TV broadcast/newspaper/internet access The right to freedom of religion does not mean the government has to pay for your Church The right to bear arms doesn't mean the government pays for your guns
As long as the government doesn't Do anything, it is 'upholding those rights'. Same with the right to counsel, etc. as long as the government doesn't Arrest you your "right to counsel" is upheld.
So if you say "I want my lawyer" as the cops start to arrest you, they can change their mind, not arrest you, and you don't get a lawyer.
The rights in the Bill of Rights are not things you demand From the government, they are things the government is not allowed to Take.
Under that argument, a "right to healthcare" means that Medicare, Medicaid, and the FDA should all be abolished.
The way your ideology interprets rights is simply different from how others do. The rights you have are in a trial are in no way 'natural rights' or anything of the sort. They are rights that society has decided to extend to it's members, rights that have been socially constructed by individuals in the past. And if society can extend those rights, it can do the same with others, such as healthcare, housing, or a certain level of minimum income.
That's what democratic debate should be about in the first place. By claiming that extending the rights of individuals is 'unconstitutional', libertarians are attempting to place all ideologies other then their own outside the political realm on the basis of some conception of 'legality', which completely foregoes the role of the constitution as a living document. It's a sign of weakness and of 'pure' conservatism, disagreeing with change just because its change.
On January 06 2012 03:54 Haemonculus wrote: If you're unable to afford an attorney in the event you get into legal trouble, the state provides one for you. Is this also a gross violation of individual rights?
On January 06 2012 03:34 AIOL! wrote: Are the republicans favorites to win this election ? I heard US guys don't like Obama anymore... From my french soul-less communist point of view that would be a desaster if the world was ruled again by one of those crazy men.
They would be if they could put up a decent candidate. Unfortunately, most of the candidates are very extreme, and thus alienate most moderates and independents. Obama is not popular but not very unpopular either.
On January 06 2012 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:29 MethodSC wrote: liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization.
For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
For Ron Paul, a kid with poor parents who can't pay his education and who would stay ignorant all his life (would probably not even learn to read, right?) would "free", while a kid who get a good quality education because his fellow citizen are clever enough to realize that education is a right and an investment for the future would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Isolationism is not peace, we have experienced it in the 30's.
Since you still think Ron Paul's policy is isolationism, then there is absolutely no reason to respond to you or for you to respond to anyone else in this thread before you go and do some research.
This "most of the republicans are too extreme to be electable" argument is a load of bullshit. Look at Reagan. He may be the most conservative politician of the past 50 years and he won both of his presidential campaign elections in landslides. Everyone said he was "too extreme" to win back then, and boy, were they wrong.
On January 06 2012 04:49 xDaunt wrote: This "most of the republicans are too extreme to be electable" argument is a load of bullshit. Look at Reagan. He may be the most conservative politician of the past 50 years and he won both of his presidential campaign elections in landslides. Everyone said he was "too extreme" to win back then, and boy, were they wrong.
Yeah except there is the same difference between Ron Paul or Buchanan and Reagan than between Mitterand and Lénine.
On January 06 2012 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:29 MethodSC wrote: liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization.
For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
For Ron Paul, a kid with poor parents who can't pay his education and who would stay ignorant all his life (would probably not even learn to read, right?) would "free", while a kid who get a good quality education because his fellow citizen are clever enough to realize that education is a right and an investment for the future would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Isolationism is not peace, we have experienced it in the 30's.
Since you still think Ron Paul's policy is isolationism, then there is absolutely no reason to respond to you or for you to respond to anyone else in this thread before you go and do some research.
"Ron Paul in 2009–‘I Wouldn’t Risk American Lives’ to End the Holocaust"
The most I learn about this guys, the most despicable he seems to me. The fact anybody can support someone like that just puzzles me.
So because the title of these articles include "isolationism" in them, they should instantly be perceived as such. I doubt you've even read these articles yourself. Listen to what the man says and you will see he's not an isolationist. Sure we can go into theoreticals about the holocaust, but the fact of the matter is none of that matters TODAY. The fact is you either vote for Ron Paul and he gets us out of the wars and tries diplomacy or you vote for anyone else and can expect a war with Iran. I'm not here to change anyones mind, that is the individuals job for themselves.
Also, if someone directly went against the constitution, which he took an oath to uphold, is that not despicable? Always remember NDAA and The Patriot Act.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization. For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Statements like this are why advocates of a free market ignore so many populist and leftist arguments. It's a waste of time to argue with someone who doesn't understand elementary principles that drive employment and compensation.
Market forces dictate the value of labor, not the whim of a business owner. Once you understand that, the entire "exploited worker" canard collapses like a house of cards.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)". .
They key difference between "right to counsel"/"right to a jury" and "right to healthcare" is that the first 2 are NOT a right that people have.
You do NOT have the right to legal counsel. Instead The government cannot Try you unless they give you legal counsel. The government cannot Try you unless they give you a jury trial.
If the government never puts you on trial, and never arrests you, then you have No right to a jury/lawyers.
It is the government's Lack of rights (to just arrest and jail you) that is guaranteed.
In that sense there is a "right to healthcare", if the government wants to put you in prison, then "no cruel and unusual punishment" means they have to give you healthcare.
Sorry, but they are rights. They are defined as such in the US Bill of Rights. The fact that they can be evoked in specific cases does not change this fact (nor does it change the validity of the analogy, which is why I mentioned them in the first place).
They can Only be invoked in specific cases and can only be invoked to Stop the government from doing something, not to force the government to do something.
The right to free speech does not mean the government has to pay for your TV broadcast/newspaper/internet access The right to freedom of religion does not mean the government has to pay for your Church The right to bear arms doesn't mean the government pays for your guns
As long as the government doesn't Do anything, it is 'upholding those rights'. Same with the right to counsel, etc. as long as the government doesn't Arrest you your "right to counsel" is upheld.
So if you say "I want my lawyer" as the cops start to arrest you, they can change their mind, not arrest you, and you don't get a lawyer.
The rights in the Bill of Rights are not things you demand From the government, they are things the government is not allowed to Take.
Under that argument, a "right to healthcare" means that Medicare, Medicaid, and the FDA should all be abolished.
You are wrong. Some of your rights imply action from the government. The right to counsel is one of those rights. It can only be invoked in certain situations, but that does not change its nature in any way. Also, you are still missing the fact that I mentioned it to prove a point - namely that it did not violate the individual rights of lawyers in this country. This seems to have gone completely over your head because what you are trying to argue has nothing to do with what I was saying.
On January 06 2012 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:29 MethodSC wrote: liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization.
For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
For Ron Paul, a kid with poor parents who can't pay his education and who would stay ignorant all his life (would probably not even learn to read, right?) would "free", while a kid who get a good quality education because his fellow citizen are clever enough to realize that education is a right and an investment for the future would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Isolationism is not peace, we have experienced it in the 30's.
Since you still think Ron Paul's policy is isolationism, then there is absolutely no reason to respond to you or for you to respond to anyone else in this thread before you go and do some research.
Yes, ignore his entire post because of his last sentence only, which happens to be unrelated to the rest of the post. Brilliant. By the way, since Ron Paul wants to leave the UN, that's more than simply non-interventionism.
Yes, because that was the only point in my post that he was actually responding to. Liberty is not libertarianism.
When he wants to argue about liberty and peace instead of libertarianism and peace, then I would gladly respond to that entire post.
He addressed how libertarians like Ron Paul view liberty. Your post was about Ron Paul and how he represents/stands for liberty and peace. He responded to your entire post.
If you're unable to afford an attorney in the event you get into legal trouble, the state provides one for you. Is this also a gross violation of individual rights?
It's untrue that the state provides an attorney for you if "you get into legal trouble."
If the state brings criminal charges against you, you may be appointed council if you wish--that's one of the many protections the government gives you against its own abuses.
Conflating that minimal protection against unjust prosecution and imprisonment with providing free (mediocre, expensive, society-crushing) healthcare to every man, woman, and child is absurd.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization. For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Statements like this are why advocates of a free market ignore so many populist and leftist arguments. It's a waste of time to argue with someone who doesn't understand elementary principles that drive employment and compensation.
Market forces dictate the value of labor, not the whim of a business owner. Once you understand that, the entire "exploited worker" canard collapses like a house of cards.
So now it's populist to question the free market fantasy popular among libertarians?
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization. For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Statements like this are why advocates of a free market ignore so many populist and leftist arguments. It's a waste of time to argue with someone who doesn't understand elementary principles that drive employment and compensation.
Market forces dictate the value of labor, not the whim of a business owner. Once you understand that, the entire "exploited worker" canard collapses like a house of cards.
Does it though? Take a look at working conditions, productivity, and wages in German auto plants. Linky
They're paying their car factory workers *twice* what we pay ours, and still making record profits. And it's thanks to regulations that protect worker's human rights.
Libertarians love to whine about how unfair government regulation is to employers, making them pay living wages and all that. It just seems that none of them care about the people that just got laid off because their employer can open a new plant in Mexico and pay the locals literally a tenth of what they were paying American workers. I suppose the lesson we're supposed to take home is that these people's labor simply isn't worth any more, or that they're greedy for wanting wages they can actually live on.
Again, do we want to value our country/society on how much "freedom" we give our well-off members and the bottom line GDP of our nation, or the actual quality of life for our citizens?
If you're unable to afford an attorney in the event you get into legal trouble, the state provides one for you. Is this also a gross violation of individual rights?
It's untrue that the state provides an attorney for you if "you get into legal trouble."
If the state brings criminal charges against you, you may be appointed council if you wish--that's one of the many protections the government gives you against its own abuses.
Conflating that minimal protection against unjust prosecution and imprisonment with providing free (mediocre, expensive, society-crushing) healthcare to every man, woman, and child is absurd.
You are completely missing the point of the analogy, which was used to point out that a right to healthcare wouldn't violate the individual rights of the healthcare providers more than the right to counsel violates the individual rights of lawyers.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)". .
They key difference between "right to counsel"/"right to a jury" and "right to healthcare" is that the first 2 are NOT a right that people have.
You do NOT have the right to legal counsel. Instead The government cannot Try you unless they give you legal counsel. The government cannot Try you unless they give you a jury trial.
If the government never puts you on trial, and never arrests you, then you have No right to a jury/lawyers.
It is the government's Lack of rights (to just arrest and jail you) that is guaranteed.
In that sense there is a "right to healthcare", if the government wants to put you in prison, then "no cruel and unusual punishment" means they have to give you healthcare.
Sorry, but they are rights. They are defined as such in the US Bill of Rights. The fact that they can be evoked in specific cases does not change this fact (nor does it change the validity of the analogy, which is why I mentioned them in the first place).
A more appropriate analogy would be the government providing you with a right to healthcare options before it tortures you for being an untried, unconvicted Islamist. Is this really the same sort of right as free, universal healthcare? Do you honestly not understand the difference between a limitation on abusive governmental authority and free goodies for everyone?
If you're unable to afford an attorney in the event you get into legal trouble, the state provides one for you. Is this also a gross violation of individual rights?
It's untrue that the state provides an attorney for you if "you get into legal trouble."
If the state brings criminal charges against you, you may be appointed council if you wish--that's one of the many protections the government gives you against its own abuses.
Conflating that minimal protection against unjust prosecution and imprisonment with providing free (mediocre, expensive, society-crushing) healthcare to every man, woman, and child is absurd.
You are completely missing the point of the analogy, which was used to point out that a right to healthcare wouldn't violate the individual rights of the healthcare providers more than the right to counsel violates the individual rights of lawyers.
And, as has been pointed out time and again, you have no such natural right.
The right to bear arms does not mean that the government buys your guns for you.
The right to free speech does not mean that the government writes your essays for you.
The right to healthcare does not mean that the government buys your insurance for you.
Your arguments fails in that you don't understand the basic nature of rights.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)". .
They key difference between "right to counsel"/"right to a jury" and "right to healthcare" is that the first 2 are NOT a right that people have.
You do NOT have the right to legal counsel. Instead The government cannot Try you unless they give you legal counsel. The government cannot Try you unless they give you a jury trial.
If the government never puts you on trial, and never arrests you, then you have No right to a jury/lawyers.
It is the government's Lack of rights (to just arrest and jail you) that is guaranteed.
In that sense there is a "right to healthcare", if the government wants to put you in prison, then "no cruel and unusual punishment" means they have to give you healthcare.
Sorry, but they are rights. They are defined as such in the US Bill of Rights. The fact that they can be evoked in specific cases does not change this fact (nor does it change the validity of the analogy, which is why I mentioned them in the first place).
A more appropriate analogy would be the government providing you with a right to healthcare options before it tortures you for being an untried, unconvicted Islamist. Is this really the same sort of right as free, universal healthcare? Do you honestly not understand the difference between a limitation on abusive governmental authority and free goodies for everyone?
If you're unable to afford an attorney in the event you get into legal trouble, the state provides one for you. Is this also a gross violation of individual rights?
It's untrue that the state provides an attorney for you if "you get into legal trouble."
If the state brings criminal charges against you, you may be appointed council if you wish--that's one of the many protections the government gives you against its own abuses.
Conflating that minimal protection against unjust prosecution and imprisonment with providing free (mediocre, expensive, society-crushing) healthcare to every man, woman, and child is absurd.
You are completely missing the point of the analogy, which was used to point out that a right to healthcare wouldn't violate the individual rights of the healthcare providers more than the right to counsel violates the individual rights of lawyers.
And, as has been pointed out time and again, you have no such natural right.
The right to bear arms does not mean that the government buys your guns for you.
The right to free speech does not mean that the government writes your essays for you.
The right to healthcare does not mean that the government buys your insurance for you.
Your arguments fails in that you don't understand the basic nature of rights.
This. was. not. the. point. of. the. analogy.
Go back to my original post. The analogy was not about the rights of the ones GETTING healthcare and counsel, it was about the rights of those PROVIDING the services. It blows my mind that you have still not made the effort to even check the original post when I'm the one who wrote it and I'm telling you you're missing the point.
If you're unable to afford an attorney in the event you get into legal trouble, the state provides one for you. Is this also a gross violation of individual rights?
It's untrue that the state provides an attorney for you if "you get into legal trouble."
If the state brings criminal charges against you, you may be appointed council if you wish--that's one of the many protections the government gives you against its own abuses.
Conflating that minimal protection against unjust prosecution and imprisonment with providing free (mediocre, expensive, society-crushing) healthcare to every man, woman, and child is absurd.
You are completely missing the point of the analogy, which was used to point out that a right to healthcare wouldn't violate the individual rights of the healthcare providers more than the right to counsel violates the individual rights of lawyers.
And, as has been pointed out time and again, you have no such natural right.
The right to bear arms does not mean that the government buys your guns for you.
The right to free speech does not mean that the government writes your essays for you.
The right to healthcare does not mean that the government buys your insurance for you.
Your arguments fails in that you don't understand the basic nature of rights.
There is no such thing as the 'basic nature of rights'. All rights are socially constructed and only hold true within a specific society, and they are not 'fixed'. As history shows, rights change and politics in its core is how we want them to change.
To put things in perspective: I have a right to healthcare (the actual care) in my country. My ancestors a 100 years ago did not have that right. Libertarians have since quite a while figured out that the general public does not actually want to get rid of medicare, or old age pensions, and have since started resorted to declaring them 'illegal' instead of using actual arguments to get rid of them.
Libertarian economic theory gets presented like scientific truth, yet there is no actual scientific consensus, but by pretending that there is you legitimize not having to deal with counter-arguments at all. Other ideologies do this to, but libertarians have made 'free markets' the de-facto answer no matter what the question was.
On January 05 2012 14:44 NtroP wrote: I can understand your point of view. When I was 20 or so, I was firmly on the other side of the fence. Then I visited slashdot for 10 years. Also, during this time period I got very good at using google to research whatever tickled my fancy.
Now, I trust what I can research and prove using the tools *I* have. Everything else I am skeptical of.
That's just standard conspiracy talk for 'even tho noone believes me, I know I'm right, because I found an incredibly biased youtube clip that said so'. One of the downsides of the internet is that you can find 'proof' for pretty much anything if you look hard and long enough.
Here is a quote from the first 2 sentences on wikipedia for CRITICAL THINKING
"Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true."
I'd call it critical thinking. The ability to question what is presented to you as fact. In fact, the people that you call conspiracy theorists, might just be people that think critically about what is presented to them on tv. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Maybe questioning what others assume is true is deviant and destructive. (by definition, it is, as the definition of society is basically a group of people that think the same stuff and act the same way so they can get along) Maybe major news outlets are just so bad at their job that it causes people that question their motives to create a lot of fluff that isn't there. That'd be funny, but nice.
The next thing is wisdom, the ability to discern fact from fiction and whether it matters in any given situation. I'm honestly not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to make sure that more than one viewpoint is provided in this thread. There's others too, and I appreciate their effort.
Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite.
You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me.
Actually, I started by explaining why conspiracy theorists often mistakenly think they're engaging in critical thinking, then I engaged you and explained why your post was an example of what I had just explained. Looks like you're the one who needs to pay attention.
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.
What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all?
Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically.
Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
Now, let's look at your rebuttal of my post. You start by claiming you're going to state the facts, but in reality you can't help but push forward your personal interpretation even as you're supposedly presenting facts. Here are the actual facts: the soldier says "Well I think it would be even more dangerous to start nitpicking wars with other countries, someone likes Iran...", then there is a glitch/cut in the audio and video, then we see and hear him again say "...Israel is more than capable of...", then severe glitches appear on screen and the audio and video are cut off.
If you're trying to present facts, there is no need to add "(intentionally or not)" after saying he was cut off. Also, the last state he mentioned was Israel, not Egypt. Finally, the audio and video are interrupted at the exact same time - your last comment has nothing to do with the facts themselves since it only reflects your interpretation of those facts, an interpretation thats stems from your personal beliefs and not the facts discussed here, namely what is seen in the video.
Now that we've established that you're already having a hard time separating your interpretation of the facts from the facts themselves, let's look at the rest of your reply. I wrote that your statement regarding CNN intentionally cutting off the soldier was not supported by factual evidence. Did you, in your rebuttal, bring forward any factual evidence that would support your claim and rebut my post? No, you didn't. You spent three paragraphs ranting about the media pushing for an invasion of Iran and telling me to pay attention and think critically, but you failed to provide a single piece of evidence that would lead someone engaged in critical thinking to conclude that CNN probably censored the soldier deliberately. It's therefore perfectly safe to conclude that your statement was indeed not supported by any factual evidence, and thus that this was a very clear display of a lack of critical thinking from your part.
Here's the thing: you can't claim to be thinking critically if all you're doing is looking for evidence to support what your pre-existing beliefs tell you. You're guilty of the exact same thing you're accusing others of. In this case, there is NOTHING factual that strongly indicates CNN actively censored the soldier. Nothing. And the reason you reached that conclusion is that you're looking at this through the lenses of your support from Ron Paul and your disgust with what you consider to be the "mainstream media". Don't get me wrong, you can very legitimately support Ron Paul and be critical of the job tv channels and newspapers do, but the moment you stop relying on evidence and start making unsubstantiated inferences based on your pre-existing beliefs, you're not engaging in critical thinking.
*first, I meant Israel of course. Typo on my part.
Secondly, I appreciate you challenging me.
I don't know, I feel we have a disconnect. Having seen it once or twice more since I wrote that post, the audio cuts out when he says Iran to the point that all you hear is eye, so perhaps he was saying eyeball or island. Also, people at the actual Ron Paul event mentioned that the interview was time delayed as they had a monitor of the actual program playing near the camera that was filming interviews. People mentioned a time delay of anywhere from 30-60 seconds from what they saw vs what was happening in front of them. (the interview)
The interview was not live. It was quite close to live, but not quite. The reason they started showing the interview was because he only mentioned censored subjects about 50 seconds in.
Also, I looked into causes for commercial satellites dropping a signal. Looks like a lot of room for 'oops' moments or third party interference. No mention of weather, just man made sources.
The Satellite Users Interference Reduction Group (SUIRG) categorizes satellite communication interference into five main groups, these are: 1. User Error a. Human Error b. Equipment Failure 2. Crosspol Leakage 3. Adjacent Satellites 4. Terrestrial Services 5. Deliberate Interference
Finally, what evidence do you have that they didn't interrupt their own interview?
If you're unable to afford an attorney in the event you get into legal trouble, the state provides one for you. Is this also a gross violation of individual rights?
It's untrue that the state provides an attorney for you if "you get into legal trouble."
If the state brings criminal charges against you, you may be appointed council if you wish--that's one of the many protections the government gives you against its own abuses.
Conflating that minimal protection against unjust prosecution and imprisonment with providing free (mediocre, expensive, society-crushing) healthcare to every man, woman, and child is absurd.
You are completely missing the point of the analogy, which was used to point out that a right to healthcare wouldn't violate the individual rights of the healthcare providers more than the right to counsel violates the individual rights of lawyers.
And, as has been pointed out time and again, you have no such natural right.
The right to bear arms does not mean that the government buys your guns for you.
The right to free speech does not mean that the government writes your essays for you.
The right to healthcare does not mean that the government buys your insurance for you.
Your arguments fails in that you don't understand the basic nature of rights.
There is no such thing as the 'basic nature of rights'. All rights are socially constructed and only hold true within a specific society, and they are not 'fixed'. As history shows, rights change and politics in its core is how we want them to change.
To put things in perspective: I have a right to healthcare (the actual care) in my country. My ancestors a 100 years ago did not have that right. Libertarians have since quite a while figured out that the general public does not actually want to get rid of medicare, or old age pensions, and have since started resorted to declaring them 'illegal' instead of using actual arguments to get rid of them.
Libertarian economic theory gets presented like scientific truth, yet there is no actual scientific consensus, but by pretending that there is you legitimize not having to deal with counter-arguments at all. Other ideologies do this to, but libertarians have made 'free markets' the de-facto answer no matter what the question was.
You have everything wrong. Economics is not a natural science the way that Biology and Chemistry are. In science you can create models that predict outcomes to a very precise certainty. Economics doesn't accomplish this. Economics is a study of the beliefs, goals, and aspirations of its players. Economics to an American is different than economics to a North Korean, their beliefs and motivations are completely different.
Libertarians recognize these beliefs and allow them to play themselves out. Libertarians believe that people desire freedom. The "rights" you describe don't actually create freedom, they inhibit it.
On January 05 2012 09:49 kwizach wrote: Ok, Kiarip has been repeating the same fallacy to attack the idea of a right to healthcare for a few pages now and I don't think anyone has pointed out how flawed his reasoning was, so here goes.
He writes:
On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
This is exactly in line with the argument made by Rand Paul in the following video:
In fact, on page 173 of this thread, Kiarip already wrote to support Rand Paul on this issue:
On December 12 2011 14:21 Kiarip wrote: Saying someone has the right to something taht's made by another person is analogous to slavery, how can you have the right to something that's not yours? it basically means that you have the right to have another person work for you regardless of whether he agrees or not.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)".
So no, dear Kiarip, a right to healthcare would definitely not be "analogous to slavery" and "violat[ing] the rights of whoever provides the healthcare". IT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSABLE TO INDIVIDUALS. The STATE would be paying WILLING individuals to provide care. How is this violating the doctors' rights? If you consider this a waste of taxpayer's money feel free to argue so (even though I don't agree), but to argue that it violates the rights of the healthcare providers is a flat-out lie and a misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare. Period.
Ok, now that I've debunked your little claim on this matter, let's move to our unfinished business that dates back to December 21st.
On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:
On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:
On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:
On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:
On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote: [quote] paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong.
Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do.
if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage.
If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right.
Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit.
LOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example.
Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have.
No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots.
On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:
On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote: Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run.
Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice.
right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't...
No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can.
User was temp banned for this post.
Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave.
1. First link: - The study does not examine the stimulus bill that was passed, it looks at the average effect of government spending - It does not address overall job growth but only PRIVATE job growth - In the footnote nr. 12, another paper is mentioned. I find this particular footnote interesting because it serves no real purpose except to mention ONE study that agrees with their findings. In the very sentences they quote from the said paper, however, it is also written that "[I]ncreases in government spending do lower unemployment" (the emphasis is mine), when looking at BOTH private sector jobs and public sector jobs.
2. Second link: - If you read the conclusions, the authors argue that they were unable to look at spillover effects, and that doing so "might result in estimates of a large positive jobs e ffect", since "[if] this type of spillover from interstate trade is widespread nationally, then the economy-wide jobs e ffect of the ARRA may be actually larger than what we find" - Even without taking into effect these effects, the study does not outright dismiss the possibility of a positive effect of the stimulus: "the best-case scenario for an effectual ARRA has the Act creating/saving a (point estimate) net 659 thousand jobs, mainly in government."
3. Third link: - Like the first link, this does not examine the stimulus bill that we were discussing - It is a short article in the WSJ and the methodology/findings can hardly be critically evaluated - It is argued that spending multipliers usually do not exceed one, not that government spending has zero/negative effects - The stimulus bill also included tax cuts, something the article says "boosts growth". This article therefore supports the idea that the bill had a positive effect - way to shoot yourself in the foot.
No one has commented this?
You're just pushing the problem one more step. Someone still has to provide the resources necessary to pay the doctor, janitor and what not. The persons providing the labour become the slaves. That is why libertarians argue for a minimal state that does all the basic things necessary (defense, judicial system, police etc.) that would simply be inefficient or impossible for a free market to provide.
This is in essence a question of philosophy. Of what can reasonably be called a "right" and what not. And no, the "right" to medical aid or even food can't be magically spun away using your logic. The original problem still persists, no matter in what step you try to hide the costs paid by persons who may be unwilling to do so, the costs are still there and they in effect become slaves.
In case you didn't notice, my reply was addressing Kiarip's claim that the individual rights of the healthcare providers would be violated. I debunked that claim and explained why it was a completely misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare.
Like I wrote, the question of whether taxpayer money should be used to provide healthcare is a different one (I believe it should, but that's still a different debate). Nowhere did I try to "magically spin away" anything - you're simply guilty of muddying the waters and accusing me of something I did not say/do. You're entitled to your conception of taxes amounting to slavery, but it has nothing to do with the precise argument I addressed, which was about the rights of the healthcare providers as healthcare providers and not as taxpayers.
Can you provide me with your definition of "slave" and "slavery", by the way?
Fine. I just extrapolated from the video and comments that that was the actual debate. Guess I was wrong; but knowing the Pauls I really think he was focusing on that other debate.
EPT
