Sounds like they're doing a hell of a business. Hire more workers, build more branches, make more money.

I don't disagree that it leads to a place where life gets a lot tougher for private insurers -- they'd basically have to provide equal service at a lower cost because a public plan can ALWAYS look at it's bottom line and set the goal to break even, whereas a private insurer ALWAYS has to have a goal of turning a profit.
Or only lose *so* much, yes.

The private insurance industry would probably shrink and morph into more of a niche area... maybe it's elective care... maybe it's coverage of experimental care... maybe some combination of both.
As it has elsewhere. It's not going away, no question.

That's the great thing about not having some sort of libertarian philosophy to adhere to.

Well, that, and the whole being-able-to-perceive-reality-as-it-is-instead-of-refracted-through-a-rigid-prism-of-theory thing. ;-)

Well, that, and the whole being-able-to-perceive-reality-as-it-is-instead-of-refracted-through-a-rigid-prism-of-theory thing. ;-)

Yes, life is much simpler when your analysis starts and stops with "the ends justify the means".

Personally I favor Single Payer, just because it seems to be the most direct and simple approach ("means") to delivering the result ("end") I stongly desire: universal delivery of high-quality health services (not just insurance coverage) at affordable cost.

You mean "at a cost paid for by someone else."

Something that one can't afford is not "affordable," pretty much by definition. If I can't afford a porsche, but you pay 95% of the cost for me, I now have a porsche, but I still couldn't afford it.

You mean "at a cost paid for by someone else."

Something that one can't afford is not "affordable," pretty much by definition. If I can't afford a porsche, but you pay 95% of the cost for me, I now have a porsche, but I still couldn't afford it.

Garrison Keillor had it right in his column today.

You simply cannot compare a car, much less a Porsche, with health care.

Virtually everyone is, at some point in their life, going to face a catastrophic care issue. If you're lucky - it'll happen after you're 65, and you'll be under the Medicare umbrella... but a few pages back, someone called the catastrophic care issue a rarity.

It's simply not true. You or someone you know is going to face cancer, a stroke, a heart attack, or some other medical condition requiring very expensive care at some point in your life.

That's the great thing about not having some sort of libertarian philosophy to adhere to.

Well, that, and the whole being-able-to-perceive-reality-as-it-is-instead-of-refracted-through-a-rigid-prism-of-theory thing. ;-)

Did you ever get the sense if the people here who become libertarians (or worse Randian Objectivists) are the same people, who if they had been born in France would be Marxist?

Of course the philosophies appear to be polar opposites, but the adherents have the same loopy disconnect from reality and the same rigid adherence to theory.

You simply cannot compare a car, much less a Porsche, with health care.

You missed the point of my analogy, which was simply to demonstrate the meaning of "affordable." Here - substitute this instead for what I wrote:

"Something that one can't afford is not "affordable," pretty much by definition. If I can't afford [[a porsche]] high-quality health services, but you pay 95% of the cost for me, I now have [[a porsche]] high-quality health services, but I still couldn't afford it."

Virtually everyone is, at some point in their life, going to face a catastrophic care issue. If you're lucky - it'll happen after you're 65, and you'll be under the Medicare umbrella... but a few pages back, someone called the catastrophic care issue a rarity.

It's simply not true. You or someone you know is going to face cancer, a stroke, a heart attack, or some other medical condition requiring very expensive care at some point in your life.

Yes, but what is true is that these risks get greater as one ages.

Of course the philosophies appear to be polar opposites, but the adherents have the same loopy disconnect from reality and the same rigid adherence to theory.

Dogma is the opiate of the fringes, I guess.

Did you ever get the sense if the people here who become libertarians (or worse Randian Objectivists) are the same people, who if they had been born in France would be Marxist?

Yes, that's right. The same unswerving adherence to dogma and ideology. It's just exchanging one God for another. And as is pointed out by many, what God you believe in and what religion you practice has to do with the circumstances of your bith and rearing. And for the believer, both must be taken on unswerving faith, supported with nothing but axioms. It's not essentially a different mindset. It seeks to place human nature and social institutions, including government, in rigid templates. They're like Dawkins's comment about believers being atheist with regard to all gods but their own--they just need to take it one god farther. But they won't do it because the earth would open up before them and swallow them.

Did you ever get the sense if the people here who become libertarians (or worse Randian Objectivists) are the same people, who if they had been born in France would be Marxist?

Not necessarily, because it's hard to know what might go on in a time machine, but it's probably no accident that many of the more prominent founders of National Review were former Communists. And what pidgin libertarians and pidgin Marxists do have in common is good old reductionism, a One Size Fits All explanation for pretty much anything and everything.

Comparing the lines at the USPS to the lines at Fed Ex is like comparing the availability of tickets to the Red Sox to the availability of tickets to Pirates. (I'm not talking about the quality of service, just the #'s of customers served.)

Very true. And indeed, Amazon is one hell of an amazing company. In terms of price, selection, and customer service, they're almost straight out of one of those sci-fi novels of 1900 that projected what life was going to be like in 1940.

The downside is that they've essentially destroyed all but the last vestiges of brick & mortar book shops, both new and used. But if it wasn't Bezos, it would have been someone else. And to their credit, they've used their marketplace position in a positive way, at least from the consumer's standpoint.

You obviously have never dealt with Amazon as a seller trying to sell items through Amazon Marketplace. They're a customer service nightmare, deny, deny, deny and never do a damned thing to help.

People seem to be having trouble processing the word "generally."

Coming from someone who doesn't seem capable of grasping that bad service in NYC isn't typical of the rest of the country, that's pretty rich. I sold books online for years, and traveled around the southeast buying in that time. I visited post offices in 8 states and had only a couple of long waits in all that time, nor was any USPS employee ever rude to me. And their delivery record for close to 100,000 packages was superb, well over 99%. The USPS does a great job from everything I have seen.

If I mail a letter today at 4pm, it will get anywhere in the state of MA, excluding the islands, by tomorrow. Every time. At 44 cents a letter, that's quite a value. Do these people who would rather see FedEx or any other private company handle our mail delivery think it can be done any better? How could it be cheaper? It can't. These "free marketers" are greedy cocksuckers who want to own everything.

The USPS does a great job from everything I have seen.

In my experience -- and I mail and receive many, many items through them as part of my job -- they do a fairly good job of delivering the mail. But that's not what I was talking about.

Yes, you're saying that you'll pay extra for the convenience of not waiting in line for an hour. So, use FedEx in good health, good sir. The rest of us will suffer with the USPS.

At 44 cents a letter, that's quite a value.

It is when looked at in isolation like that, but they're also using taxpayer money to mail the letter at 44 cents.

Give me back my tax dollars and close down the post office and I'll be happy to use the private services for mailing whatever I need.

In my experience -- and I mail and receive many, many items through them as part of my job -- they do a fairly good job of delivering the mail. But that's not what I was talking about.

Mmm-hmm.

We can toss you down an extra shovel or two if you need it. Just let us know.

Something that one can't afford is not "affordable," pretty much by definition. If I can't afford a porsche, but you pay 95% of the cost for me, I now have a porsche, but I still couldn't afford it.

First, it doesn't matter. If the society, the community, says you own it, then you own it. In some steps you can become owner of property through adverse possession for a certain number of years. In other states, a different number of years. Maybe in some jurisdiction somewhere, you can't become owner through adverse possession. It ain't holy writ. In the sense that it is absolute and immutable. It’s what the community decides. And it can't change what it decides. You have a voice in that, but that's all you have. You don't have any natural inalienable right to decide, ipse dixit, what laws you will adhere to and which you will not. At least that's the principle.

This has been how it is since the beginning of societal times. Societies, from the tribal to most sophisticated, have taken and have given. That's the way it's always been.

Furthermore, you ignore the concept that the context itself (the game, the society, the community relations in all their interplay) has value and is gives what you have value. It adds value to what it is you have that has value. Look at it as a poker game. You ante up (the house decides what that will be), and just because you "pass" on a hand doesn't entitle you to take out your ante. Thus, the winner gets more than he put he in, and at the end of the game some win, some lose, some more than others, this time. Other times there may be different winners and losers to different degrees. But that's the game. It's important to have a game with rules. If you don't want to play, go home. Go find some other game somewhere. Good luck, if you think you can find that game you imagine, though. Because it doesn't exist, it never has, and it can't. As far as I can see. But keep trying; maybe you can convince enough people that we'll be forced to all go to hell on your tobaggan slide. That's the way it is with these games. But you don't both get to win and get to cover yourself with a blanket veto on everything if you don't--you don't get an inexhaustible supply of wild cards. You don't get to game the game that way. If you did, then we don't have a game. That's not a game. That's chaos.

It is when looked at in isolation like that, but they're also using taxpayer money to mail the letter at 44 cents.

How much? At what point do you think you'd break even?

Give me back my tax dollars and close down the post office and I'll be happy to use the private services for mailing whatever I need.

Easy for you to say since you live in New York, which the private services cover well and for a reasonable cost. I live in the middle of nowhere in Alabama, 20 miles from a town of more than 250 people. The reason the post office loses money is because it covers the entire country for the same price and has offices everywhere (including one just under 3 miles from me). If the post office closed down, your costs wouldn't go up that much but my costs for mailing a letter or paying a bill by mail would be 10 times as much or more. As always, you view things only in terms of how they affect you personally.

Do these people who would rather see FedEx or any other private company handle our mail delivery think it can be done any better? How could it be cheaper? It can't. These "free marketers" are greedy cocksuckers who want to own everything.

Not only that. If the private sector takes over from the USPS,then at least one of two things will happen: you will have to suffer a derogation rights or the private companies vaunted sevice will have to "deteriorate" to accomodate those rights.

In fact, from the looks of it, a sizeable percentage of the geezers in those crowds seem mostly to be agitated at the thought that the government will reduce their Medicare check, not that Medicare is a government program to begin with. Some principled lot you've got there.

What do I care if they're principled? Most people aren't principled. I care if they support my view on this issue.

Look at it as a poker game. You ante up (the house decides what that will be), and just because you "pass" on a hand doesn't entitle you to take out your ante. Thus, the winner gets more than he put he in, and at the end of the game some win, some lose, some more than others, this time. Other times there may be different winners and losers to different degrees.

The problem with this analogy is that everyone in a poker game gets dealt a set of random cards. But in real life, people are holding different cards, not because of pure randomness, but because of some intrinsic combination of luck/randomness/skill/talent/effort/risk-taking/intelligence/etc.

This poker analogy perfectly illustrates how liberals think. They act as if your lot in life is purely random; you have no control over it, just like you have no control over which cards you are dealt in a poker game. And so all the people holding Ace King suited were just lucky and have to provide "high-quality health services" for those "less fortunate" who "happened to be dealt" 3 7 off suit.

Oh I know there is no chance he will comment. Or he will claim a photoshop or something.

Perhaps. I have no idea who that is or where or when it was taken, whether it was a legit sign or a leftist trying to parody conservative protesters.

David, is this what you posted?:

There were no such "signs." Some random people have claimed to have heard these comments from friends of a friend, always without attribution as to date or place; in short, they're urban legends.

Yes, yes it is. I showed you a picture of the exact sign in question.

You said no sign like this existed. I showed it did. Back peddle harder man. This isn't court, you can't get by on some technicality.

First, it doesn't matter. If the society, the community, says you own it, then you own it.

So, if society, the community, says that rich white men can own, say, black people, then they do? Good to know.

Glad to know that slavery was merely a simple governmental choice rather than a gross violation of the rights of others.

I'm confused of your point here, Dan. Wasn't it clearly both as opposed to a "rather"?

That photograph was taken August 8th of this year at Rep. Rick Larson's town hall meeting in Mt. Vernon Washington.

Now with video 1:15 mark

naa

David, same offer to you as to Ray about those shovels. Just say the word.

I'm confused of your point here, Dan. Wasn't it clearly both as opposed to a "rather"?

If the right of property is not derived from the self but simply whatever the government says is property, then how could people who were enslaved have possibly had their rights violated?

The right to not be bought or sold or compelled to labor, under Morty's scenario, can only stem from the wishes of society. As the society wished to define black people as property, then slavery was simply a disagreement on governmental policy rather than an abhorrent crime.

In fact, if government determines what property is, then any behavior whatsoever by a government fails to violate anyone's rights. I'm glad I don't believe that, because it's an untenable position.

My post 925. Sorry, I was called away before I gave it one last proof. "Steps" in the second line should be "states". "And it can't change what it decides" should be "can".

Last paragraph, second line: "is" should be "it".

So, if society, the community, says that rich white men can own, say, black people, then they do? Good to know.

Ummm...

What?

I'm not following you, Dan.

Prior to the 13th and 14th amendment, yes - they did. The Dred Scott reinforced the idea when the 'property' escaped to a state that didn't consider the property to be 'property'. I'm sure I'm not understanding either Morty's point or the counterpoint you're trying to make, but the community/society DID say that (....)white men can own black people -- and they did.

Unless you're trying to draw some sort of distinction between 'society' and the government that records and enforces what society/community says.

So, if society, the community, says that rich white men can own, say, black people, then they do? Good to know.

Well, yes, they do (did). SHOULD they? No, not even remotely.

The society currently says that gay people who love each other are not afforded the same rights as straight people. The society, the community, says so. They are dead wrong, but it is the society that is making it so.

Again, I don't understand what point you are making.

If the right of property is not derived from the self but simply whatever the government says is property, then how could people who were enslaved have possibly had their rights violated?

The right to not be bought or sold or compelled to labor, under Morty's scenario, can only stem from the wishes of society. As the society wished to define black people as property, then slavery was simply a disagreement on governmental policy rather than an abhorrent crime.

In fact, if government determines what property is, then any behavior whatsoever by a government fails to violate anyone's rights. I'm glad I don't believe that, because it's an untenable position.

OK... so if I'm understanding you correctly, the ONLY proper course of action, pre-1861, was to join up with John Brown, no?

I mean, I'd like to think I would have... or at minimum, would have been way station on the underground railroad or something... I'm sure everybody does... but few were.

EDIT: Or, I guess, move to another nation that had abolished slavey

OK... so if I'm understanding you correctly, the ONLY proper course of action, pre-1861, was to join up with John Brown, no?

As an aside, Cloudsplitter by Russell Banks on this very topic with Brown as the main character (story narrated by his son), is a pretty amazing piece of fiction.

Or maybe a bit less slippery topic...

I do not personally believe in the death penalty. I do not the government should, under any circumstances, be in a position where it puts a human being to death. I have, in fact, been dismissed from jury duty because during jury selection I said that no, under no circumstance could I vote or even in conscience take part in a trial that would put someone to death... no matter how abhorrent the crime, etc.

Society, the community, believes differently. In fact, it apparently believes it so strongly that in choice of elected officials -- I rarely have a legitimate choice in even voting for someone that agrees with me (or at least, has the balls to do so on the record).

Do I have a moral imperative to break people out of death row?

Do I have a moral imperative to break people out of death row?

You can act on your moral imperative without actually breaking people out of prison, you know.

As an aside, Cloudsplitter by Russell Banks on this very topic with Brown as the main character (story narrated by his son), is a pretty amazing piece of fiction.

Ironically enough, that's the second time this week someone has recommended that book to as an aside to different discussion.

Perhaps I will either visit my public library to check out a copy or see whether Amazon has a used copy... Does Amazon deliver via the USPS?

The Baucus Bill seems to be an attempt to combine the profiteering of the private sector with the inefficiency and heavy-handedness of the public sector.

or, get this: they want you to check yourself out. (I like what one old man said when he complained about the wait and the Wal-Mart clerk told he could use the self-service line: "If I want to work for Wal-Mart, I'll fill out a job application and I'll expect a salary. What's next--you want me to stock the shelves for you?")

Self-check out lines are awesome. I wish every grocery store/Walmart type place had them.

Perhaps I will either visit my public library

Why must you continue to piss on private enterprise?

So, if society, the community, says that rich white men can own, say, black people, then they do? Good to know.

Sure. And, yes, it is good to know where things come from? It would apply to if it says that poor black men own rich white men? (Not that that’s very likely, right?) And when there came a time when we said rich white men didn’t own black men, they didn’t, although there were teabaggers then, too. (Now, I know we can just float off into semantic space here. Please, let’s not.)

Do you find that particular assertion unbelievable or just unpalatable? I can agree it is an ugly proposition. But, life, existence, can be ugly. I would think we could all agree to that. We can try to improve them, though. Just because, however, we don’t like some propositions doesn’t mean they don't exist. That I recognize the matrix from which they come doesn’t mean I approve of everything which issues forth from that generator. That’s why what we decide is so very important—it has real consequences flowing from that decision, and that’s real, that's truth, whether we like or not. That’s what is, isn’t it? That’s why we can change it, too. What’s your alternative to the source of ownership? Please be specific and give examples of the phenomenon you hold to exist.

The slaves should have gotten better jobs.

Morty, they want everything corporate. Everything owned by them. Everything that can be considered a staple, a necessity. If they could find a way to own the air we breathe, they would. And we would pay. Or suffocate. Tough #### for us.

If the right of property is not derived from the self but simply whatever the government says is property, then how could people who were enslaved have possibly had their rights violated?

That's not what I said, though, is it? "Government"?

What does that mean--"rights", "violated"? Why do you define it so, and what's your authority and rationale for doing that?

The right to not be bought or sold or compelled to labor, under Morty's scenario, can only stem from the wishes of society. As the society wished to define black people as property, then slavery was simply a disagreement on governmental policy rather than an abhorrent crime.

And you, and me, and them, can impress upon however that is defined.

In fact, if government determines what property is, then any behavior whatsoever by a government fails to violate anyone's rights. I'm glad I don't believe that, because it's an untenable position.

How is it untenable? Seems to me it was very tenable for many years. May still be tenable in some places, although it may not be called slavery.

That’s why we can change it, too. What’s your alternative to the source of ownership?

Man owns himself and anything stemming from oneself.

Give me back my tax dollars and close down the post office and I'll be happy to use the private services for mailing whatever I need.

Oh? So you know what would happen, a dozen companies in New York would try to jump into the game. A thought experiment:

What happens when someone sends you something that requires a signature? You see, now, when most stuff can still be sent by mail, this is an uncommon inconvenience. But in your scenario mailboxes have to go away. Because you can't have eight different companies going in and out of business, hiring and firing people, all having the ability to go through your mailbox. The theft would be rampant. So now with mailboxes gone (or even if they stay), anything important sent by anyone (any kind of check, documents, etc.) is going to come signature required, because nobody is going to want to accept the consequences of having this thing be left on your doorstep or in the mailbox that 50 people rummage through. And with no standardization, what happens when this guy uses Company A, and your employer uses Company B, and et cetera? Either you're staying home so you can be there when 10 different companies show up, you're having to go to the offices of 10 different companies to get your stuff, or you're signing those little "leave it without a signature" things and thereby delaying your mail for a day just so they can leave it out in the open like before. Except now you're on the hook, and if it gets taken you're screwed.

Public mail, until the advent of teleportation, is not an optional thing.

Man, I'm very sympathetic to 954, but seriously, I've done enough Locke-and-Nozick scholarship to know that figuring out what that 'stemming from' means is a ####### giant pain in the ass.

Man owns himself and anything stemming from oneself.

Meaning one cannot own land, right?

I find it hilarious that Glenn Beck (not that I'm accusing anyone of being on his bandwagon) has crowned himself a modern day Thomas Paine... because Paine didn't think you could 'own' land either, but rather - only own the improvement (farming, etc) you produced on the land, and that beyond what you needed for subsistence farming - you owed the rest of us ground rent or something like that for anything you 'rented' beyond that.

That was just to directly address Ray on his terms and how things affect him directly. Shalimar of course points out the real problem, last mile service.

Well, yes, they do (did). SHOULD they? No, not even remotely.

Dan, like many, can't help wanting what he feels ought to be to be recognized as what is, and always has been--something just gets in the way, but 'truth' just needs to be mid-wifed. It's a great truth, a law, an absolute law that always has existed somewhere. Yet, where this would reside, or come from, outside of ourselves and our cultural creations, he can't say. That's why the language of a worn-out creed is just wrong, inappropriate. Next we'll hear some blatherings about the Declaration of Independence (the High Secular version of the Bible) some other enunciations. It's really a faith in some sort of belief in God, but he'll never admit that. That don't have the theology anymore, but they want to keep the linguistic trappings of that creed they disown. Like what was said above, it's just another lateral to a different God.

Meaning one cannot own land, right?

Correct. I'm most accurately described as a Georgist rather than a libertarian, but the former isn't in use much and can make conversations confusing and there's quite a lot of overlap.

It's really a faith in some sort of belief in God, but he'll never admit that.

Me? That's a hoot.

Self-check out lines are awesome. I wish every grocery store/Walmart type place had them.

Does that then impose an obligation on us to use them?

Meaning one cannot own land, right?

Correct.

Hmmm... OK... interesting. I now might wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Do you have cools hats?

Man owns himself and anything stemming from oneself.

Who (what) says so? What makes it so? Who'll enforce that? You? Or, do you expect some of us to support you in this scheme? And for free?

Give me back my tax dollars and close down the post office and I'll be happy to use the private services for mailing whatever I need.

Disband the Post Office and give everybody a pony?

I want to make it clear that I'm not entirely sure that I support what Morty is getting at.

It's entirely too top-heavy and pointy-headed ("What does that mean--'rights', 'violated"? Why do you define it so, and what's your authority and rationale for doing that?" - I mean, UGH) for me to really get behind.

EDIT: I support being given a pony.

959, eh. That's I think a confused reconstruction of the standard libertarian line on these things, which Szym toes pretty closely as far as I can tell. What Szym is emphasizing is that the verb 'to own' is commonly used in a normative way: ownership is morally okay; if it's not morally okay, then it's not really true ownership.
This is, I think, not a particularly important or deep truth, but it lets him make another point that is more important.

You're emphasizing the fact that property and ownership are social phenomena, but I don't think that's quite right. People act in certain ways towards goods; those are social phenomena. Traditionally, 'ownership' is not properly a phenomenon at all, because it is normative. Good and bad aren't things in the world either. By saying that white men used to own black men, there's an implication that it used to be okay. Szym's point is that it was never okay, and therefore the language of ownership is not appropriate.

Now, you seem to have some sort of deep metaphysical problem with libertarianism in that you seem to think that any reference to truths that aren't empirical will end up relying on God, but this line of postmodern thought leads pretty much inevitably to deep relativism, and that sucks for a whole bunch of reasons (I've got a paper somewhere...).

I guess I think there are normative truths about what is good or bad that aren't empirical. Do you think that runs into the same problem?

Edit: Szym says a lot of this same stuff in 967, only a lot clearer and more directly.

Who (what) says so?

I do. Only I am me and I am the only entity that I have personal insight into in whatever reality consists of.

Who'll enforce that?

Nobody, unfortunately. That something is not so does not mean that it is not just.

Or, do you expect some of us to support you in this scheme? And for free?

If you feel that your very essence is determined by governmental fiat, then I feel truly sad for you. Nothing demeans one's life more than the very essence of your existence being simply a roll of the dice as to where and when you happen to exist.

But hey, if you are happy living in a world in which society determines the ground rules of your existence, then more power to you. Just be happy you weren't born a black in Alabama in 1860, a Jew in 1930s Germany, an English serf in the middle ages, or a non-Christian in Europe in the 1500s and consider yourself glad that someone else told you that your existence had value. If it gives meaning to your life to have what you are simply be determined by paperwork, then that is your right and I have no desire to take that away from you.

The problem with this analogy is that everyone in a poker game gets dealt a set of random cards. But in real life, people are holding different cards, not because of pure randomness, but because of some intrinsic combination of luck/randomness/skill/talent/effort/risk-taking/intelligence/etc.

Irrelevant. Besides, the problem with most analogies is people do what you here have done with this analogy. People misread them so as to avoid the point. When it just swooshes over you head like this, you got to be ducking. Anybody can do that to analogies. It’s very disheartening, but it’s also telling, though, someone does this rather than discuss what the analogy strives to illuminate and support. But, I can’t force you to discuss the gravamen of my claim.

This poker analogy perfectly illustrates how liberals think. They act as if your lot in life is purely random; you have no control over it, just like you have no control over which cards you are dealt in a poker game. And so all the people holding Ace King suited were just lucky and have to provide "high-quality health services" for those "less fortunate" who "happened to be dealt" 3 7 off suit.

What does this have to do with my reply to your statement regarding ownership? This is tout la merde du ‘tit veau caille, pure-D high quality Alcapulco fool’s gold, as we Cajuns used to say.

EDIT: I support being given a pony.

Not me. Ponies are can be temperamental creatures that eat and poop a lot.

Will there be an option for those of us that dislike ponies?

930. RayDiPerna Posted: September 16, 2009 at 07:42 PM (#3324026)

The problem with this analogy is that everyone in a poker game gets dealt a set of random cards. But in real life, people are holding different cards, not because of pure randomness, but because of some intrinsic combination of luck/randomness/skill/talent/effort/risk-taking/intelligence/etc.

This poker analogy perfectly illustrates how liberals think. They act as if your lot in life is purely random

- ???
do, PLEASE do explain how your lot in life is NOT random

do you think for one second that if i had a choice i would choose THIS, instead of being, say, sean forman? or even bill gates? or even a AAA baseball player??? or even you??? heck i wouldn't mind being a male, have the advantages you WERE BORN WITH, like, say, your lack of learning disabilites, your IQ, going to good schools, having good teachers, etcetcetc.

ARE YOU NUTS????

you think that infants CHOOSE terrible parent(s), drug doing mothers, getting raped, beaten, abused, underfed, ignored, ducking bullets every day, knowing better than to leave their apt so they won't get shot, public schools like you have never thought of in your worst nightmares where the one good thing about them is that they can be sure of getting something to eat twice a day (which i know u disapprove of because that is done on YOUR dollar - eff em, right? starving kids don't bother YOU none)

you got absolutely NO idea what it is like to be born into hopelessness. NO idea

when you are dealt a lousy hand ain't real too much you can do with it except bluff a whole lot, but basically lose. and at least i had it better than most - i had 2 parents, had plenty of food, never worried about being beaten,raped, rented out - unlike a whole lot of people i know and YOU DON'T

so tell me do - i know how all yall LUUUVVVV to tell us how we need to get a better job. so i'll ask you like i asked david last night (and he ignore me) DO tell me. and it has to be something that starts after 6 PM and ends before 6 PM unless you think it is fine to leave kids alone in a house and to have you 6 and 7 year olds walk home alone from school

wait - let me guess
i should hire some expensive child care provider to do the work with my minimum wage salary. or maybe have one of my husband's relatives who may or may not bother to show up or show up, uh, not sober (but of course that is not random, is it), but hey, who cares. or even better, give our foster kids back, put our own kids there too - hey, heck with them, right - after all, it IS their fault they got abandoned, right? it won't affect them in the least to get abandoned and have to struggle with that and try to survive in the foster care system. you have ANY idea how many kids who spend their little lives in foster care going from home to home do? but i know, it isn't random and they deserved it.

If you feel that your very essence is determined by governmental fiat, then I feel truly sad for you. Nothing demeans one's life more than the very essence of your existence being simply a roll of the dice as to where and when you happen to exist.

But hey, if you are happy living in a world in which society determines the ground rules of your existence, then more power to you. Just be happy you weren't born a black in Alabama in 1860, a Jew in 1930s Germany, an English serf in the middle ages, or a non-Christian in Europe in the 1500s and consider yourself glad that someone else told you that your existence had value. If it gives meaning to your life to have what you are simply be determined by paperwork, then that is your right and I have no desire to take that away from you.

Isn't that a bit either/or-ish?

The slaves should have gotten better jobs.

Someone should have asked them to detail their life choices that left them in that position.

But in real life, people are holding different cards, not because of pure randomness, but because of some intrinsic combination of luck/randomness/skill/talent/effort/risk-taking/intelligence/etc.

This poker analogy perfectly illustrates how liberals think.

Perhaps. Your bold type in the original post also illustrates, literally, the same point for typical righties. You also have done this with all caps--MAKING BETTER CHOICES--a few times.

I should note that I don't use the make better choices trope, I just find it irrelevant to the matter at hand.

I have helped people who have been less fortunate in their lives because my personal beliefs demand that I do. I just don't believe I or any other person have the right to impose my beliefs (or, when it comes down to it, my personal *religion*) on others.

I haven't spent a lot of times in nursing homes because I particularly enjoy the atmosphere. I didn't have my grandfather move in with me when he had metastatic prostate cancer because changing a catheter bag was exciting. If someone's going to bring up the silly argument that believe in libertarianism are simply mean old horrible people who want people to die, I'm going to fight you with every thought in my brain and hope that it can be up to the task at least some of the time.

And when I see someone talk about how they shouldn't have to have a roommate and someone should buy them health insurance, it turns my stomach. No, I haven't been unfortunate, but I handled my grandparents finances from the time I was 18 and I used every dime I would have received and quite a few of my own to ensure that they got the best of medical care and when things went downhill, to keep them in their own house as absolutely long as it was possible. So for those that are willing to not even be mildly inconvenience, I have not patience with.

I do not personally believe in the death penalty. I do not the government should, under any circumstances, be in a position where it puts a human being to death.

The death penalty issue is similar to the abortion issue to me: I don't have strong feelings about them either way.

You want to have an abortion? Fine. You are an abortion? Fine.

I should note that I don't use the make better choices trope, I just find it irrelevant to the matter at hand.

I was addressing Ray (I think you knew that).

Ray, watching the news, while having dinner: Oh, look, a flood in (somewhere else, where he knows no one). 1000 dead. Pass the corn.

I was addressing Ray (I think you knew that).

That was mostly for Bernal, actually, so I don't get hit with the "get a better job!" schtick.

The death penalty issue is similar to the abortion issue to me: I don't have strong feelings about them either way.

You want to have an abortion? Fine. You are an abortion? Fine.

Well... Setting aside the whole 'when life begins' discussion that let me say right now, I'm not going to participate in - maybe Dan's ethos is worming its way into my brain, but I think there's a huge difference between something the state allows (or maybe more accurately, refuses to disallow) and something the state carries out.

I am not a pacifist per se, I would not claim conscientious objector status if drafted, and I do not categorically deny the state's ability to wage war.... or even - in the line of duty, assuming the usual caveats in a such a situation - that an appointed person of the state (i.e., the police) can never take a life without penalty.

Isn't that a bit either/or-ish?

Yeah, I tried this earlier and mostly with #941, but couldn't get any answer. I think that Dan and Morty are in a zone of opposition that might not make my points relevant, or mean that they kind of suck. (I mean that nonbitchily, actually, I'm never entirely sure that's not the case.)

Ray, watching the news, while having dinner: Oh, look, a flood in (somewhere else, where he knows no one). 1000 dead. Pass the corn.


As opposed to having what reaction that significantly differs, exactly? I'm being serious here, because I don't know what you're thinking he (or I) should do. He could say "Oh, look, a flood, 1000 dead. How terrible. Pass the corn, please." Is that somehow meaningfully different?

To get anywhere in life you have to personally believe that your fate is in your hands, but its beyond cruel and heartless to believe that other people live in a libertarian fiction where their fate is entirely in their hands.

I have little use anymore for political or religious arguments, don't spend much time anymore on the internet, and my life has dramatically improved over the past year. Cause ultimately it doesn't matter what you believe if you aren't out in the world living it.

I thank my lucky stars i was born with as much good fortune as I was, in relative wealth and with health and looks and brains and talent. Funny thing is, I never believed in them until now, my 44th year, cause of #### that happened to me when i was a kid before i had any choice in the matter, and an incredibly sensitive nature.

Try once in a while to walk in someone else's shoes.

Love you, bc.

As opposed to having what reaction that significantly differs, exactly? I'm being serious here, because I don't know what you're thinking he (or I) should do. He could say "Oh, look, a flood, 1000 dead. How terrible. Pass the corn, please." Is that somehow meaningfully different?

I admit that I find Ray rather intolerable, but I'd agree the quoted Bivens post was rather unfair.

What Szym is emphasizing is that the verb 'to own' is commonly used in a normative way: ownership is morally okay; if it's not morally okay, then it's not really true ownership.

This is confusing. What does ‘morally okay’ have to do with ‘normative’? And, anyway, I explicitly excluded that sort of expedient type usage. You desperately want to get back to playing word/concept games. If you want to say owning slaves was wrong, fine. But, saying you couldn’t own slaves because it was wrong defies history and pollutes terminology.

Besides, again I ask, where would this “morally okay” thing come from if not from us, our relations, and our institutions? As they were and as they change. Slavery was justified for millennia, and don’t be too sure it can’t be again. Indeed, it is in some places. As those people if they own slaves or are slaves? And I’ll bet you if Szm, you, or I were in a position where our survival depended on doing someone dirt, if we could only protect ourselves by making slaves, or using slaves, we just might do it, and we just would try to justify it. Off the top of my head, I think of Andrew Jackson and the Battle of New Orleans. If our survival was at stake, but for certain persons survival was not at issue, and they could care less about helping me out, I’m not so sure I wouldn’t use them in a high-handed way if I could. How about you?

By saying that white men used to own black men, there's an implication that it used to be okay.

Well, that seems to be your personal problem, but wasn’t it? Why do we get to decide what used to be okay? What does it mean, anyway—other that confound our apprehension of it? In what way wasn’t it okay? Certainly, many people thought it was okay? Most others thought it was none of their business. Then things begin to change. But it wasn’t because of revelation; it was because of self-interest. In fact, many people who were of the same race as the slaves thought it was okay to sell them as slaves. What is it that made it not okay, then sort of okay, then sort of not okay, then not okay (in broad terms of course)—outside of certain individual’s sensibilities (which we haven’t gone into yet, it being outside the scope of the discussion here about institutional change, but which were probably replete with self-interest, too) that grew into such numbers that it force society over time to change?

Szym's point is that it was never okay, and therefore the language of ownership is not appropriate.

I know it’s Szym’s point. It’s wrong. What’s normative can change. What he holds is nothing but a naked belief and an obtuse denial of history, of the way things were and the way things were looked at by the people then, until there was a change over time. Then that became normative. It’s his belief now, and he’s a creature of now. And now is not then. That’s what he doesn’t seem to comprehend. That doesn’t mean there is not a spectrum of flux.

But, let’s not define terms in such a rarefied (and historically contrary) way that you can’t talk about what was what. This reeks of a “the right sort of people don’t discuss matters like that in that way”. Let’s not discuss something in a way that makes it not worth discussing, because it doesn’t comprehend what actually was. And what was, was slaves were owned. Until they weren’t. You seem to be trying to create as a viable concept the “normative absolute”. The normative that always was. What’s the justification for that?

As opposed to having what reaction that significantly differs, exactly? I'm being serious here, because I don't know what you're thinking he (or I) should do. He could say "Oh, look, a flood, 1000 dead. How terrible. Pass the corn, please." Is that somehow meaningfully different?

Yeah, I think complete indifference is meaningfully different than being sympathetic to unfortunates. I'd trust that folks with the latter reaction would help if they could. I'd trust that those with Ray's apparent attitude would not, even if they could.

Christ, go away for a couple of days, and there's a thousand-post political thread that you can't resist reading and being annoyed by.

I do.

And who are you to decide that on your own?

Only I am me and I am the only entity that I have personal insight into in whatever reality consists of.

Sorry, others beg to differ.

Nobody, unfortunately. That something is not so does not mean that it is not just.

Doesn’t mean it is either. So where does that leave us?

If you feel that your very essence is determined by governmental fiat, then I feel truly sad for you. Nothing demeans one's life more than the very essence of your existence being simply a roll of the dice as to where and when you happen to exist.

Essence? What is this—a Pepe le Pew cartoon? What is this 'essence'? What does it have to do with whether government does or doesn’t determine anything?

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ...” Philip K. Dick.

But hey, if you are happy living in a world in which society determines the ground rules of your existence, then more power to you.

Do I believe that? Why do you think that? What does determine those ground rules? I know I wasn't happy and would be happy believing that there was pie in the sky contrary to all evidence. Working at defining yourself, creating yourself, and in relation to your world--I think that's fairly stirring, and I'm impressed by those who try to do that, but I always open to entertain other strategies and goals. You're not making yours credible or appetizing.

What you believe, as stated in this post, a reversion to religiosity which I exactly predicted, is of no moment as to reality. (I feel like Professor Higgins. I said she’d do it, and she did, she did.)

Besides, again I ask, where would this “morally okay” thing come from if not from us, our relations, and our institutions? As they were and as they change.

There are some general facts about people that don't change. Biological facts, like how much water we need to live and the effect of beatings on pain receptors, and psychological facts, like how we respond to being beaten and how we generally behave in certain circumstances. The former tend to be change less than the latter, but it seems plausible that there are psychological facts about how people are. Don't ask me what they are; I'm not in a position to know, and undoubtedly it is a complicated empirical question.
I think the most plausible view of morality is that the correct moral evaluations can be derived from these facts. What is good for people doesn't change with the institutions. We can morally evaluate whether the practice of slavery, as it was practiced in 1830 in the American South, was good for people or not. What the government thinks and does, what society thinks and does, does not affect whether or not that practice is good for people.

Now, it might be that we can be wrong about what is good for people. Of course we can. Undoubtedly there were some people in the American South who honestly believed that slavery was, overall, a benefit to both the slaveowners and the slaves. Based on the better knowledge we have now of human equality, those people were wrong, and the practices they endorsed were immoral. Perhaps at some point in the future we will learn that we were wrong about some basic facts, and some institution of ours is similarly wrong. The fact that we might be wrong does not let us ignore what all the evidence tells us.

You seem to be trying to create as a viable concept the “normative absolute”. The normative that always was. What’s the justification for that?

Because what's good for humans hasn't changed. Maybe at some point in the future it will; maybe technology will advance such that pharmaceuticals will change humans at a basic level, and then the facts will change, so what's good for humans will change. But over the time period we're talking, since the dawn of recorded history, nothing like that seems to have happened; what is good for humans has stayed stable. So there is a fact of the matter about what is morally right and wrong, and for as long as humans have been around there have been such facts.

I'm pretty sure that I've said this before but: Dan S. - though I definitely don't come away with the same belief set you do (for a variety of reasons), I find your worldview fairly reasonable. That and a dollar will buy an USPS airmail stamp to Europe, but there you go.

If everyone agreed with me, it would be pretty boring with nobody to argue with.

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been standing in my place but who will never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara - more, the atoms in the universe. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Donne, greater scientists than Newton, greater composers than Beethoven. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I that are privileged to be here, privileged with eyes to see where we are and brains to wonder why.

I've always found this statement by Richard Dawkins profoundly heartfelt and greatly uplifting. And it's born out of accepting what is. Talk about "lucky". I could never feel that way if I had to have try to justify to myself beliefs that seem to exist extra-dimensionally, that "just are". It's just too too much like the being the Hollywood starlet on her knees before the naked movie producers pretending she is being knighted. But, if she is being knighted, in fact, and not just normatively, I stand corrected. And I would hope that if the self exists outside of the natural world and the impingements of man's artifices, I could summon the minimal grace to accept it and change. Personal and social change, part and parcel one another.

If everyone agreed with me, it would be pretty boring with nobody to argue with.

You could always argue with the state.

Morty,

The crux of your position goes back 2500 years. You're a pretty well read guy so I'll ask you this. In what way does your position differ from Thrasymachus? Which is to say if justice really just conventionalism then isn't the best way of life to get away with as much as you can while appearing to be the most just of all?

The irony is that it is the kind of conventionalism that you are defending that most results in the caricature we have of what libertarians are like (i.e. Gordon Gecko).

Dan,

The ethical ground of your position is natural right. There is no reason for you to cede the high ground to Morty's metaphysics by grounding your views in yourself. Why play the relativist game? Once the higher grounding of right is lost Morty's conclusion is logically inescapable.

Yeah, I think complete indifference is meaningfully different than being sympathetic to unfortunates. I'd trust that folks with the latter reaction would help if they could. I'd trust that those with Ray's apparent attitude would not, even if they could.

Are you serious with this?

Anyway, while I'm not going to go into details about my private life in a public forum, I'd stack the amount of time and money I've volunteered helping others up against just about anyone here.

I include friends and (especially) family members as a big part of that. That's part of my worldview, after all: that government doesn't have to do everything, and that friends and family members (and charities, etc.) can be valuable resources in helping others.

When one has 10 brothers and sisters, as I do, most of them younger, there are plenty of people to help.

I include friends and (especially) family members as a big part of that. That's part of my worldview, after all: that government doesn't have to do everything, and that friends and family members (and charities, etc.) can be valuable resources in helping others.

When one has 10 brothers and sisters, as I do, most of them younger, there are plenty of people to help.

When one has 16 brothers and sisters between one's wife and oneself, as I do, and more than 40 nieces and nephews, one is still inclined to conclude that you're kind of full of it.

ray

one more time

you mind explaining how it is that every one of us has started on an equal footing in every way and our destiny is determined solely by our own selves

plus which i am still waiting for those idea on how i could get a better job

you mind explaining how it is that every one of us has started on an equal footing in every way and our destiny is determined solely by our own selves

But I didn't say that.

But I didn't say that.

Dude, I'm telling ya. More shovel help is a-waitin'. Just holler.

do, please, explain how my lot in life is not completely random, how i had any sort of choice in most anything whatsoever

now i will agree that i CHOSE to always refuse to touch drugs or alcohol in the first place because i didn't want to find out if i am an addict/alcoholic and you can't be one if you don't touch the stuff in the first place

do, please, explain how my lot in life is not completely random, how i had any sort of choice in most anything whatsoever

Ray apparently believes that because 1 in a million persons born into extreme poverty grew up to be very rich men, all those other 999,999 people are lazy losers who chose to be poor and didn't take advantage of all of the great opportunities society offered to them.

Huh. I never would have thought this would reach 1000 posts.

and how many WOMEN born into extreme poverty grew up to be very rich women? now count the ones who did it without having sexual relations with or without a ring to get wealthy.

i count just 1 - oprah winfrey

Yeah, it's still alot harder for a woman than a man. Though I don't think sexism exists in Ray's world either, so he might disagree.

yeah it is. there are a LOT of rags to riches stories bout males, damm few bout females

so much for random

now count the ones who did it without having sexual relations with or without a ring to get wealthy.

trust me, i wish i could become very rich by having sexual relations with or without a ring