Sorry. What I posted is the law and the simple truth. You simply do not
know the facts of life for the uninsured. I suggest getting some knowledge
of how the system works before it is too late. You are heading for a lot of
trouble. Even with Medicare Part D you need an insurance company to
negotiate rates for drugs. This is true also for hospital visits. The
"cash" rate is up to 2-4 X more than the insurance rate.
So that's the 'slaughtering' that Amy was talking about?
After we all carry nukes, and all cities are abolished, the guy who's
minding his own business is slaughtering 'herd members', whatever those are.
Presumably they are people who conform to social conventions "The Number One
Poster" does not sanction.
The only thing funnier is what he doesn't hesitate to add to the long list
of subjects with which he's totally unfamiliar but ready to judge: higher
education. That's sort of like pigs dissing bacon.
Not true at all. Most policies would have covered the baby. The
problem is that very sick babies cannot make enough in their lifetime to pay
back the costs of keeping them alive for the first year or so. Result: it
becomes, one way or another, a socialized expense. The obvious thing to do
under these circumstances is, for society to be cost-effective, is to stay
to the parents, "Let this one die. Have another baby." That is the
so-called natural way. Are we ready to do that? It happens all the time in
the third-world. Libertarian principles are "natural" all right. The
natural way is to let someone die.
I love how you just nixed the rest of the qualifier.
THat is intellectually dishonest.
Yeah, given that you're going to simply ignore the actual premise (which,
in this case, was, "if a community votes as a whole to achieve a
THen the 3rd can leave the community.
Sometimes a prject can benefit everyone in a community. If your
community/town makes great furniture, and the community 10 miles away
makes great cookware, it stands to reason that everyone in both
communities/towns wouldbenefit if there were a *road* between the two,
since it's damn difficult to get your goods to market if there are no
roads. If One person refuses to help build the road, then that person
can either leave any town/community which will benefit, and/or relinquish
*any* benefit that the road would bring, regardless of what that benefit
might be - supplies, medicines, mail-order deliveries, books, doctor's
No one has demanded you leave your community. However, since your community
is located inside a democracy (technically, a republic) and you have stated
that you refuse to participate in a democracy, the only way that you can
*actually* not participate in it is to remove yourself to a place that does
not have a democratic form of government. So, you are either lying (you are
quite willing to participate in a democracy) or you are leaving (removing
yourself to a place where you will not have to participate in a democracy).
Hope this clarifies;
Apparently you're unable to grasp that when you say "I refuse to participate
in X" and then you're very patently participating in it, then you have no
credibility. That's not based on viewpoint, narrow or wide. That's simple
logic. It does seem that when it comes to this discussion your capacity for
logic has been exhausted.
No, I am the wicked family friend/aunt who winds them up and runs screaming
with them up and down the halls (and untangles the wires between the play
phones, and drags them the rest of the way up the slide when they can't
climb all the way to the top, etc.) :-D
Meanwhile, you're apparently in a shack in the woods with some time on
We could do you on welfare, mate.
Oh Jeez, you HAD to say that twice. Now my "OCD" thing is gonna kick in
(heh, get it? SOck? Kick?) and for the rest of the day, I'm going to be
walking around picturing little googly-eyes and pink felt tongues on my
Dr. Scholl's, which means that when I go to the store, I'll get stared at
because I'll keep thinging about it and giggling like a damn idiot...
What I was asking about, however, was something very local - community.
THere is a flow to it - the individual, the family, the extended family,
the village/community, and everything else from there.
WHJen DOn said that he doesn't aprticipate in democracy, I understood it
on the level of the supra-community so to speak, i.e. the county, state,
and national levels, which are several times reomved from the individual.
What I'm curious about is what sort of groups he might participate in,
and, if he doe aprticipate in a group//"community", then how are decision
smade in that group/community, and to what extent can one be amember of
a community and yet not participate in the decision-making process (for
things that affect teh commyunity as a whole).
For example, the most personal level of community democracy is the New
England town, where each vote is direct. Will we pay to fix the local
dam so that th etown center isn't flooded out if the Winter rains are
heavier than normal - that is the sort of desicion made in small towns,
and the voting in smaller towns is direct - you do not vote for some
doodz who then decide whetehr to fix the dam, you vote directyl whetehr
teh town will collect money to fix it.
THat is more like what I was asking DOn about, in an admittedlty round-
So it's not actually accurate to say that, if DOn refuses to participate
in the national Representative democracy, it therefore means taht he does
not participate in a local community - that is faulty logic. What I'm
trying to get at is his view of participation in local/direct democracy,
and a couple of other issues related to direct/local community/group
However, in order to _not_ participate in democracy, he would have to
completely leave its sphere of influence. He would have to not only avoid
using the roads built by that democracy, but, as you rightly pointed out,
refuse to use any product or do business with any person who had traveled on
the road. He would have to read no books by anyone who had ever been
publicly educated. He would have to use no electricity or (in some locales)
water or sewer.
He has not chosen to remove himself from the benefits of democracy,
therefore, like it or not, he is participating in it.
The thing is, he _is_ a member of the community he lives in, and that goes
all the way up to the level of the Nation. I find it laughable that he
expects the nation to defend his mythical individual right to a gun, yet he
does not want to contribute anything to the institutions that might be
capable of doing so, should such a right actually exist. Of course the
wording of the Second Amendment is very clear that the right to bear arms
exists primarily to provide for a militia, so I find it very amusing that
the people who call themselves strict constructionists will argue that it
means an individual right, whereas they'll argue that the public welfare is
an obligation to the States and not the individuals in the states.
He has made it clear that, even if the road that he uses every day would be
washed out by failure to repair the dam, he won't pay to repair it because
he knows enough of his neighbors are civic-minded enough to do it. Yet
he'll drive over the road cheerfully.
I think he's made it clear that, while he has no intention of eschewing the
benefits of living in this country, he is not interested in bearing the
costs of it.
You act like you're the only person to ever ask him about this, and that
your interpretation of the question is the only possible one. Refusing to
vote does not mean you're not participating in a democracy (republic,
actually). It just means you're not willing to try to influence the outcome
of the vote.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.