LG, will you represent me when I sue the gov't when healthcare passes?

#51
#51
lawgator1 said:
So you don't drive on the roads everyone chipped in to pay for? You never rely on police or fire services and never would? You did not go to public school? The University of Tennessee is a socialist institution?
Click to expand...

Why do you always harp on this stuff and never harp on the totaly useless entitlement programs?
 
#52
#52
OrangeEmpire said:
Why do you always harp on this stuff and never harp on the totaly useless entitlement programs?
Click to expand...


He's the one touting complete individual responsibility for everything. Just reminding him of the consequences of that philosophical principle if it is applied universally.

Kant said (paraphrasing): Act as though the maxim of your action was universalized. Meaning that you should make ethical choices based on what would happen if the philosophy behind it were applied to all situations, and do you like the results in other circumstances?
 
#53
#53
You know as well as I do that this crap will never go away but an overhaul of gov't is needed.

As a note, overhaul does not mean gov't expansion.
 
#54
#54
lawgator1 said:
So you don't drive on the roads everyone chipped in to pay for? You never rely on police or fire services and never would? You did not go to public school? The University of Tennessee is a socialist institution?
Click to expand...

His last post was directed at personal responsibility, paying your own way in essence. Basic infrastructure, military, police and fire protection hardly fall into the category of entitlements as the term is used today.

I think it's pretty clear what he meant, over the years entitlement has become handouts for political gain and actually done much more harm to the very people it was intended to help. It is as if our politicians on both sides of the isle never even dreamed of the concept of unintended consequences, which have come home to roost and become an all too constant thorn in societies side today.

And here we are again actually expanding our entitlement programs as we speak, the programs implemented in the past are all wasteful and bloated, cost us way too much money for the benefit and we still haven't learned our lesson.

For the record I do believe Obama is trying to create some good with this health care plan, the problem with it as I see it is that government has proven itself incapable of running these types of programs, they will become a disaster sooner or later. He doesn't realize he has put the fox (wasteful, predatory government) in charge of the hen house (peoples health care).
 
Last edited:
#55
#55
lawgator1 said:
He's the one touting complete individual responsibility for everything. Just reminding him of the consequences of that philosophical principle if it is applied universally.

Kant said (paraphrasing): Act as though the maxim of your action was universalized. Meaning that you should make ethical choices based on what would happen if the philosophy behind it were applied to all situations, and do you like the results in other circumstances?
Click to expand...
using Kant to support your warped worldview is pathetic, even by your low standards.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#56
#56
lawgator1 said:
So you don't drive on the roads everyone chipped in to pay for? You never rely on police or fire services and never would? You did not go to public school? The University of Tennessee is a socialist institution?
Click to expand...

I've paid well more than my share, but this argument about crap that the government was absolutely charged to provide is stupid.

People pay to go to UT.

You continue your mindset and foster more generations of welfare tit suckers ad feel good about it by invoking men like Kant. Doesn't change what the programs have become and that's what he asked you about.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#57
#57
lawgator1 said:
So you don't drive on the roads everyone chipped in to pay for? You never rely on police or fire services and never would? You did not go to public school? The University of Tennessee is a socialist institution?
Click to expand...

Welfare and Health Insurance aren't roads.
 
#58
#58
lawgator1 said:
So they turn down the medical care? Tell their doctor, "No, no, you send that Medicare check back to the government, I'll pay cash"?
Click to expand...

Senseless. The government has effed up the medical insurance industry for them. They have little option but to use the program. Most, if not all, hate it. OBTW, that program is also effing up the medical payor system for everyone else. I know you struggle to understand, but shoving the incompetent horde of idiots that are involved from the gov't in our system has destroyed it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#64
#64
BigPapaVol said:
Senseless. The government has effed up the medical insurance industry for them. They have little option but to use the program. Most, if not all, hate it. OBTW, that program is also effing up the medical payor system for everyone else. I know you struggle to understand, but shoving the incompetent horde of idiots that are involved from the gov't in our system has destroyed it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

i have a client that is worth $8 mil. she was recently complaining to me that medicare raised her deductables by $100 a month. this was after she told me medicare paid 100% for a personal nurse to come to her house twice a week. gee i can't figure out why medicare is bankrupting this country.
 
#65
#65
KB5252 said:
His last post was directed at personal responsibility, paying your own way in essence. Basic infrastructure, military, police and fire protection hardly fall into the category of entitlements as the term is used today.

I think it's pretty clear what he meant, over the years entitlement has become handouts for political gain and actually done much more harm to the very people it was intended to help. It is as if our politicians on both sides of the isle never even dreamed of the concept of unintended consequences, which have come home to roost and become an all too constant thorn in societies side today.
.....
Click to expand...


And I was speaking to his reasoning. One thing I have often found to be true of conservatives, especially the uneducated ones, is a tendency by thenm to speak in flourishing rhetorical terms about things like "individual responsibility," but without really understanding the philosophical, economic, or moral underpinnings of those terms.

They tout the rhetoric they hear on the radio or from Fox and Hannity, et al, but they do not have a clue as to what those things really mean in the tradition of Locke, Kant, Mills, Bentham, or the other great thinkers who influenced the Constitution (and beyond).

I find it almost pointless to try to convey the significance of those concepts because, if you do not understand them, then you tend to fall into that category of basically getting your politics on the back of a milk carton, a comic book, or in a Happy Meal.

In short: I do not have any problem with criticizing the inefficiency of our system of entitlements. Lord knows it deserves every criticism it gets. But if you want to get all high and mighty on me about "individual responsibility" then you really ought to understand what you are talking about and it is painfully clear he does not.


BigPapaVol said:
using Kant to support your warped worldview is pathetic, even by your low standards.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Its not a worldview I use that for -- its a procedure for weighing options. If this fellow wants to advocate government choice based on "individual responsibility" then I simply would ask that he have even the most basic concept of what that means in this context.


BigPapaVol said:
I've paid well more than my share, but this argument about crap that the government was absolutely charged to provide is stupid.

People pay to go to UT.

You continue your mindset and foster more generations of welfare tit suckers ad feel good about it by invoking men like Kant. Doesn't change what the programs have become and that's what he asked you about.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


No, that's not a fair characterization of my point. My point in raising those examples is that there are areas in which we have decided to compromise as to reliance on "individual responsibility" based on the value to each of us, and society on the whole, in giving up both individual rewards and personal effort, pooling our resources, and enjoying economies of scale, if nothing else.

I, too, think we have lots of mechanical problems with the way these programs are run and administered. What I do think, however, is that you have to separate out those criticism from some fifth grade mantra of "individual responsibility" when your real gripe is the bureacracy running it, not necessarily the basic theory.



g8terh8ter_eric said:
Welfare and Health Insurance aren't roads.
Click to expand...

No, but pooling resources to build things or infrastructure is based on the same basic theory of public good that underlies these other programs, at least in concept.
 
#67
#67
VOLinthaATL said:
Do you really believe all the garbage that you post on this message board?
Click to expand...


Its garbage to say that we have agreed to a social compact whereby people give up individual liberties and individual responsibility and agree to be taxed and provide authority to the government to provide for the society as a whole in some respects? Its garbage to say that a lot of the time what masquerades as resentment towards the social compact is, at its core, a complaint that the people actually running that machine are making mistakes in how they do it? Its garbage to say that we need political leadership that can give the machinery of the social compact a good fine tuning, without wrecking it in the process?
 
#69
#69
VOLinthaATL said:
Your high and mighty attitude is played out is basically what I was getting at.
Click to expand...


Precisely the response I would expect from someone that doesn't understand these concepts. The sort of "Oh, yeah? Well, screw you and your fancy science..." comment as you storm away from Jonas Salk and go put some leeches on somebody.
 
#70
#70
lawgator1 said:
Precisely the response I would expect from someone that doesn't understand these concepts. The sort of "Oh, yeah? Well, screw you and your fancy science..." comment as you storm away from Jonas Salk and go put some leeches on somebody.
Click to expand...

Not really. I understand most of what you type but your general tone that you know everything and everyone else is a moron is getting quite old in this forum...just pointing it out really...my work here is done...

But you expect whatever response you'd like...
 
#71
#71
VOLinthaATL said:
Not really. I understand most of what you type but your general tone that you know everything and everyone else is a moron is getting quite old in this forum...just pointing it out really...my work here is done...

But you expect whatever response you'd like...
Click to expand...


Not my fault the only one who even mentions the concept is BPV, who casually observes that he thinks Kant a bad foundation for some of this (but with no explanation I might add).

All other responses are recaps of the bite-size nuggets on government and philosophy spoon fed them by numbskulls like Hannity and Boortz.

I'll actually give Boortz credit for at least trying to grasp these concepts at a level beyond whatever is in the GOP hamper that day. He might not know the lingo, but that's no crime. You can tell when listening to him that he can see these things, kind of fuzzy on the horizon, but that he struggles when thinking it through. Not surprising in that his work demands that he adhere to the KISS theorem of communication.

Hannity's just retarded when it comes to this stuff. If it wasn't in 6th grade history class or come from the Heritage Foundation, in his mind it just never happened.

If he could time travel back to 1775 and walk in to the home of John Adams, he wouldn't talk about defense of the troops in the Boston Massacre, the influence of European thinkers on how he saw government and the individual, or anything along those lines. He'd want to just grab a musket and go off and get himself kilt.

Maybe I'll start on that time machine tomorrow and send him the blueprints when I'm finished.
 
#72
#72
lawgator1 said:
And I was speaking to his reasoning. One thing I have often found to be true of conservatives, especially the uneducated ones, is a tendency by thenm to speak in flourishing rhetorical terms about things like "individual responsibility," but without really understanding the philosophical, economic, or moral underpinnings of those terms.

They tout the rhetoric they hear on the radio or from Fox and Hannity, et al, but they do not have a clue as to what those things really mean in the tradition of Locke, Kant, Mills, Bentham, or the other great thinkers who influenced the Constitution (and beyond).

I find it almost pointless to try to convey the significance of those concepts because, if you do not understand them, then you tend to fall into that category of basically getting your politics on the back of a milk carton, a comic book, or in a Happy Meal.
Click to expand...

Please show us the way and help us understand the complexity of these concepts so that we to might express outrage over tidbits from Rush Limbaugh.
 
#73
#73
volinbham said:
Please show us the way and help us understand the complexity of these concepts so that we to might express outrage over tidbits from Rush Limbaugh.
Click to expand...


Glad to!

First, let's discuss the difference between deontological and teleological principles.

Deontological principles emphasize the morality of an action, most often in natural law, or theological terms. The most frequent form is something based in religion, such as being in favor of banning homosexual marriage because you believe that the Bible forbids it.

Teleological thought, on the other hand, is results oriented. It is frequently associated with utilitariansim, which emphasizes things you have heard, such as "the greatest good for the greatest number." It by and large de-emphasizes the individual in favor of cost-benefit analysis.

They each have their benefits and drawbacks. Deontological principles are theoretically stable and predictable, though human interpretation tends to skew religious principles, as we all know. And, if carried to their extreme, such principles can have disastrous effetcs. A great example of the pitfalls of such thought is 911. In the minds of the terorists, their actions were justified purely because dictated by their religion.

Utilitarian processes are susceptible to unintended consequences screwing up your quantitative result. This is frequently referred to as the "all the ripples in the pond" theory. Consider a boy who drops a pebble into a pond. He sees the pebble hit the bottom, but he cannot know what the effects will be of the ripples.

An excellent example of that problem is the effort to kill Hitler in WWII. While most folks would say it would have been great to have killed him, many scholars point out that it was his decision to invade Russia in the dead of winter that might have cost Germany the war. There are some such scholars who maintian that had Hitler been killed, then someone with a military mind might have risen to power, and the outcome of the war might have been different, or at least lasted far longer and cost many more lives.

Point is, if you say you are acting because you like the anticipated effects, you have to recognize that you do not know what ALL of the effects will be, resulting in at least a chance that it will be a net negative.

More later ...
 
#74
#74
I say they would have to take me to jail than to force me to get public health care. They are going to force this country in to bankruptcy. I may just move out of the country if this keeps up. But the main thing that causes all of these problems is money and power. Politicians just care about what they can do to get reelected. I say we demand one term for every politician and ban lobbyists for good. That would be a start.
 
#75
#75
lawgator1 said:
And I was speaking to his reasoning. One thing I have often found to be true of conservatives, especially the uneducated ones, is a tendency by thenm to speak in flourishing rhetorical terms about things like "individual responsibility," but without really understanding the philosophical, economic, or moral underpinnings of those terms.
Click to expand...

Well atleast the unecucated can spell a four letter word!

It is refreshing to know that you would rather have people taking care of you instead of being responsible enough for your own self. Does your mom still dress you in the morning? I bet she uses the Geranimals collection from Sears.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top