aviationaware wrote:

Greed is a natural feature of human nature. .

No, it is not. Greed is not an evolutionary stable strategy and therefore can´t be part of human nature. Some stockpiling will be part of human nature, but greed is as much a defect of otherwise beneficial survival behavior in the same sense pedophilia is. Greed is a mental disorder, and one day greedy people will be just as shunned from society as people with schizotypal personality disorder are today, and regularly seek treatment. They used to be revered as prophets as well......

President Trump is a perfect example for how greed and being mentally healthy are mutually exclusive.

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

All major breakthroughs with medicines, the industry just makes the medicine from the inventions done by universities, paid for by the taxpayer. Every fundamental technique within your smartphone. The internet itself. Whoeps, by far more than one, is that also ok?

You mentioned one, the internet, which was developed by a department I would leave in place, so it's not exactly a valid point. All others were just broad strokes I frankly don't see. If you think pharma breakthroughs are not paid for by the industry but the public you are deluding yourself massively.

Dutchy wrote:

Do you agree that in the US there is less government protection than in Western Europe? Yet there is more social mobility in Europe than in America.

No, I don't. The US bailed out big money just like Europe did. The US is handing out cash grants and tax credits to frauds and leeches like George Soros like candy. If you are rich, you are well off in both America and Europe.
It is also a myth that European societies are more upward mobile than the US. The opposite is true. That can most easily be seen in the number of self made billionaires vs. heirs. Europe has 1/3 self made 2/3 heirs, US is the other way around. Only the most blatant sign. Also, you have to weight absolute vs. relative mobility. Relative mobility is low everywhere, but the US is still the most prosperous large nation in the world. The average disposable income and living standard is significantly higher than in even Western Europe, benefiting a vast majority of Americans. Those not fortunate are mostly still better off than their European counterparts, despite the lack of a comprehensive welfare system like Denmark has it.

tommy1808 wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Greed is a natural feature of human nature. .

No, it is not. Greed is not an evolutionary stable strategy and therefore can´t be part of human nature. Some stockpiling will be part of human nature, but greed is as much a defect of otherwise beneficial survival behavior in the same sense pedophilia is. Greed is a mental disorder, and one day greedy people will be just as shunned from society as people with schizotypal personality disorder are today, and regularly seek treatment. They used to be revered as prophets as well......

I am sure you can back up that ludicrous claim by citing the study of some crackpot leftist moron, like the ones who claim that heterosexuality is an artificial social construct or that the two naturally designed genders were invented by white males as a tool of oppression.

aviationaware wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

All major breakthroughs with medicines, the industry just makes the medicine from the inventions done by universities, paid for by the taxpayer. Every fundamental technique within your smartphone. The internet itself. Whoeps, by far more than one, is that also ok?

You mentioned one, the internet, which was developed by a department I would leave in place, so it's not exactly a valid point. All others were just broad strokes I frankly don't see. If you think pharma breakthroughs are not paid for by the industry but the public you are deluding yourself massively.

lol.............................. whom is deluding itself? Give me one example of a medicine fundamentally developed by the industry. And I mean the underpinning technology, not the medicine itself. And not all the variants they develop just to extend the royalties. Lots of spin-offs to explore the techniques developed within the academic.

But fine, what about space? All paid for by the taxpayer, which trickle down to terrestrial applications. Exploration of space itself.

As for the internet, both civil as military use from the beginning, so you would not leave it alone, as you claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
And before you mention ARPANET, all the fundamental techniques were developed by universities, again funded by governments which you want to abolish.

So my point on innovation is still very valid.

aviationaware wrote:

I am sure you can back up that ludicrous claim by citing the study of some crackpot leftist moron, like the ones who claim that heterosexuality is an artificial social construct or that the two naturally designed genders were invented by white males as a tool of oppression.

You just love using strawman arguments, don´t you?

it is simple game theory.

Human wellbeing in modern societies relies on social cohesion, which can be characterized by high levels of cooperation and a large number of social ties. Both features, however, are frequently challenged by individual self-interest. In fact, the stability of social and economic systems can suddenly break down as the recent financial crisis and outbreaks of civil wars illustrate. To understand the conditions for the emergence and robustness of social cohesion, we simulate the creation of public goods among mobile agents, assuming that behavioral changes are determined by individual satisfaction. Specifically, we study a generalized win-stay-lose-shift learning model, which is only based on previous experience and rules out greenbeard effects that would allow individuals to guess future gains. The most noteworthy aspect of this model is that it promotes cooperation in social dilemma situations despite very low information requirements and without assuming imitation, a shadow of the future, reputation effects, signaling, or punishment. We find that moderate greediness favors social cohesionby a coevolution between cooperation and spatial organization, additionally showing that those cooperation-enforcing levels of greediness can be evolutionarily selected. However, a maladaptive trend of increasing greediness, although enhancing individuals’ returns in the beginning, eventually causes cooperation and social relationships to fall apart. Our model is, therefore, expected to shed light on the long-standing problem of the emergence and stability of cooperative behavior.

Please, be my guest, show us where they got the math wrong: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136269/

cue USA, where millions of despicable people cheer on a president that kills tens of thousands of US citizens with his euthanasia Programm for the old, poor and sick, if it ever becomes law.

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

So my point on innovation is still very valid.

No, because the top research faculties in the US are not paid for by the tax payer.

tommy1808 wrote:

cue USA, where millions of despicable people cheer on a president that kills tens of thousands of US citizens with his euthanasia Programm for the old, poor and sick, if it ever becomes law.

I am ending the discussion with you at this point, you truly are beyond hope of redemption.

aviationaware wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So my point on innovation is still very valid.

No, because the top research faculties in the US are not paid for by the tax payer.

The world is bigger than the US .

And besides that, grants are offered, which are paid by.................. the US tax payer.......

aviationaware wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So my point on innovation is still very valid.

No, because the top research faculties in the US are not paid for by the tax payer.

tommy1808 wrote:

cue USA, where millions of despicable people cheer on a president that kills tens of thousands of US citizens with his euthanasia Programm for the old, poor and sick, if it ever becomes law.

I am ending the discussion with you at this point, you truly are beyond hope of redemption.

Tommy isn't expressing himself in the most tactful way. But still, he has a point, you don't believe in healthcare provided by the government, and the current Trumpcare plan will just do that, leaving 20-24 million of your fellow Americans without a healthcare plan, so relying ones again on charity, you expressed a desire to have just such a system.

Dutchy wrote:

Like I said, you are perfectly fine with the "damn all" policy.

It's not a "damn all" policy, it's a policy of letting individuals handle their affairs how they see fit.

Dutchy wrote:

As long as you have some gains, you are alright with it.

I never said that.

Dutchy wrote:

Let's do the deregulation thingy: more profits, perfectly, and off course, public loses and private gains, who cares, not my problem.

What public losses and what private gains? You keep on talking about the boogeyman of deregulation and all of the damage it has caused yet you (and Tommy) can't even identify what was deregulated and how if caused all of this alleged damage.

The bottom line is that if two parties are entering into a consensual contract then your morality doesn't matter unless you're one of the two parties.

flipdewaf wrote:

Its quite possible to remove yourself from the risk pool that is the country you live in and try to apply for citizenship in another country/risk pool, of course the issue is that you can't just decide to be in a certain risk pool the others have to determine whether they want you in that risk pool as well. As with any insurance risk pools there are rules that you have to abide by to get the payouts/peace of mind, a country is no different.

I should have clarified. "People" in my statement refers to the others in the risk pool as well. It is just as wrong to force an individual to join a given risk pool as it is to force a given risk pool to take on an individual.

Dutchy wrote:

Banks and their greed, especially the incentives put into the system to individual employees with bonuses up to millions of dollars.

Private banks incentivizing their employees for the wrong things is their problems. Banks don't make money when borrowers default.

Dutchy wrote:

Why do you put all the fault on government, if you say that you fully understand the system which let to the 2007 disaster? Revoking the Glass–Steagall Act was one.

The government caused the housing crash, but not through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

The real issues were the ideas and policies pushed on people by the government, and liberals in particular. It became part of American orthodoxy that a key part of the American Dream is to own a home and politicians shamelessly pushed the notion that every American should be able to own a home, whether they could afford it or not, and the government enacted policy to this end, such as starting Fannie and Freddie. These policies sometimes included explicit goals to extend financing to middle and low income buyers.

At the same time, along with home ownership as American birthright, the notion that real estate is an ever appreciating asset became popular. It didn't matter how much you paid for a house because you could always sell it for more. And if you had a house already, you didn't want to keep all that money tied up in it when you could leverage that equity for cash.

The result is a situation where financing was available for people didn't warrant it to buy something where nobody cared about the cost. There was no way the whole system wasn't going to have huge issues at some point. Combining debt into derivatives is not fundamentally bad, in fact quite the opposite. The banks did lose track of where the risk was and where it was going, but that only exacerbated an already huge problem and was not a root cause of the crisis.

What should really be distressing about this is that the very same pattern is playing out as we speak in the student loan markets and car financing as well.

aviationaware wrote:

The following departments are completely unnecessary:

You've got to be kidding.

aviationaware wrote:

Name one (recent, WW2 inventions don't count).

GPS.

Dutchy wrote:

Show us five societies which flourish(ed) with your principles.

America up to the 1930s did.

Dutchy wrote:

All major breakthroughs with medicines, the industry just makes the medicine from the inventions done by universities, paid for by the taxpayer.

Why can't the pharmaceutical industry pay universities for this academic work? I bet they already do actually.

I'm not against the government paying for things, but everything the government pays for should be for a government purpose. Providing healthcare for everyone is not something the government should be doing.

tommy1808 wrote:

No, it is not. Greed is not an evolutionary stable strategy and therefore can´t be part of human nature. Some stockpiling will be part of human nature, but greed is as much a defect of otherwise beneficial survival behavior in the same sense pedophilia is. Greed is a mental disorder, and one day greedy people will be just as shunned from society as people with schizotypal personality disorder are today, and regularly seek treatment. They used to be revered as prophets as well.....

Please show us the sources backing up your assertion that greed is a mental disorder.

tommy1808 wrote:

it is simple game theory.

That doesn't say it's a mental disorder. Nobody disputes that being too greedy can eventually be someone's downfall, that's not news to anyone who's seen Scarface. But you're coming to the wrong conclusion: That's not a reason we need the government to curb greed, that's a reason why we don't need the government to curb greed and indeed should not allow it to. There's no need to restrict individuals rights because they will see the best returns by being greedy enough, but not too greedy.

aviationaware wrote:

No, because the top research faculties in the US are not paid for by the tax payer.

Some of them are.

Dutchy wrote:

But still, he has a point, you don't believe in healthcare provided by the government, and the current Trumpcare plan will just do that, leaving 20-24 million of your fellow Americans without a healthcare plan, so relying ones again on charity, you expressed a desire to have just such a system

First, charity is not the government. Second, Trump's plan is bad because you can't just zero out everything all at once. Fixing healthcare means phasing out government involvement over a period of time to make healthcare as close as possible to a free market without breaking it.

BMI727 wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Name one (recent, WW2 inventions don't count).

GPS.

Again, military. Which I would leave largely in place. You see, this pattern goes on and on. All of the high tech developed by the government i defense related. And by the way, GPS isn't exactly rocket science these days, just very, very expensive. If there were no GPS, private enterprise would have filled that gap. That much is pretty obvious.

aviationaware wrote:

No, I don't. The US bailed out big money just like Europe did. The US is handing out cash grants and tax credits to frauds and leeches like George Soros like candy. If you are rich, you are well off in both America and Europe.
It is also a myth that European societies are more upward mobile than the US. The opposite is true. That can most easily be seen in the number of self made billionaires vs. heirs. Europe has 1/3 self made 2/3 heirs, US is the other way around. Only the most blatant sign.

Not the most blatant sign but rather a very narrow definition of social mobility since most people aren't billionaires. Actually the US ranks worse than most European countries (the only big European economy with lower mobility than the US is the UK).

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/up ... ll_ch3.pdf

For example only 8% of Americans make it from the lower to the top quintile of income, while the figures for other European countries range from 11 to 14%

aviationaware wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

We might call that a form of Arnachy also.

Absence of unnecessary administration does not equal absence of laws, so you can hardly call that anarchy.

Forgive the typing error, but how about no regulations issued by these agencies? Can you imagine what we would have without some controls?

Less idiotic regulation is always a good thing and has nothing in common with anarchy. One example, many countries work perfectly well while NOT banning sunday openings of stores. So why cut into store owners' freedom like that by banning it? No reason really.

aviationaware wrote:

Less idiotic regulation is always a good thing and has nothing in common with anarchy. One example, many countries work perfectly well while NOT banning sunday openings of stores. So why cut into store owners' freedom like that by banning it? No reason really.

"Less idiotic regulation is always a good thing " duhhh, the same as good health is always a good thing.

There are reasons for being against Sunday openings and no, they are not religious. They held a referendum in my town, ten plus years ago, actually, 50+% were against, and my town is as liberal as they come in The Netherlands.

As with everything, the freedom of someone will impact the freedom of someone else.

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

But still, he has a point, you don't believe in healthcare provided by the government, and the current Trumpcare plan will just do that, leaving 20-24 million of your fellow Americans without a healthcare plan, so relying ones again on charity, you expressed a desire to have just such a system

First, charity is not the government. Second, Trump's plan is bad because you can't just zero out everything all at once. Fixing healthcare means phasing out government involvement over a period of time to make healthcare as close as possible to a free market without breaking it.

You clearly not listen, so no point in debating you anymore.

aviationaware wrote:

BMI727 wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Name one (recent, WW2 inventions don't count).

GPS.

Again, military. Which I would leave largely in place. You see, this pattern goes on and on. All of the high tech developed by the government i defense related. And by the way, GPS isn't exactly rocket science these days, just very, very expensive. If there were no GPS, private enterprise would have filled that gap. That much is pretty obvious.

I gave you many examples, you all dismiss them and just say, see I am right.

But again, yes, high-tech might be specifically developed for the military, but the underpinning technology was mostly not.

"GPS isn't exactly rocket science these days" --> these days is indeed the key and how did we come to this point......

Dutchy wrote:

There are reasons for being against Sunday openings and no, they are not religious. They held a referendum in my town, ten plus years ago, actually, 50+% were against

Well, a referendum on a town-by-town basis is a perfectly good way to decide about things like that. No need for soviet-centralist regulations.

aviationaware wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

There are reasons for being against Sunday openings and no, they are not religious. They held a referendum in my town, ten plus years ago, actually, 50+% were against

Well, a referendum on a town-by-town basis is a perfectly good way to decide about things like that. No need for soviet-centralist regulations.

So it is ok if your freedom is decided on a local level, but on the national level, all hell breaks loose and we are back in the Soviet Union? That is not really fundamental

BobPatterson wrote:

After mentioning in another thread that I used to work for Human Events newsletter (1959-1963) I visited their current website and found it hard to believe what I was seeing. I was not aware that Ann Coulter is a star columnist there. I read a number of her columns and can now better understand why Berkeley finds her unpalatable.

Her columns about health insurance sound so very much like you that I'd like to ask:

Are you a fan or habitual reader of Ann Coulter?

Do you read Human Events often?

Human Events: http://humanevents.com

Some great reading there:

http://humanevents.com/2017/05/25/rome- ... yrophobia/

Ann is disgusted by innocent little girls getting killed in England and her solution is to nuke a majority Muslim city after every terrorist attack:

The most humane response to terrorist attacks in the West is to kill a bunch of them for revenge, and then concentrate on our own problems. Instead of sending ground troops to Syria, we should be sending them to San Diego.

Our policy following every Islamic terrorist attack anyplace in the West should be the following:

1) We drop a nuke on some majority-Muslim city involved in terrorism.

2) We add six months to the immigration moratorium (which Trump promised us in his Aug. 16, 2015, immigration policy paper, the greatest political document since the Magna Carta).

3) We deport one Ninth Circuit judge.

The far right is all-out deranged.

aviationaware wrote:

Again, military.

I never said it wasn't.

Dutchy wrote:

You clearly not listen, so no point in debating you anymore.

It's because you're wrong and believe it's your right to take other people's stuff if it helps you.

Dutchy wrote:

So it is ok if your freedom is decided on a local level, but on the national level, all hell breaks loose and we are back in the Soviet Union?

No it's not okay at all. No government has any legitimacy telling a business what days they may or may not be open unless you can show me someone who has their rights violated by that business being open or not. And before anyone asks, no, you do not have a right to have others follow you religious beliefs.

BMI727 wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Again, military.

I never said it wasn't.

Dutchy wrote:

You clearly not listen, so no point in debating you anymore.

It's because you're wrong and believe it's your right to take other people's stuff if it helps you.

No, I believe that society can do that, society which everyone can participate in. I believe the welfare of society goes before the individual. You believe the opposite and like I said before, the "damn all" policy.

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So it is ok if your freedom is decided on a local level, but on the national level, all hell breaks loose and we are back in the Soviet Union?

No it's not okay at all. No government has any legitimacy telling a business what days they may or may not be open unless you can show me someone who has their rights violated by that business being open or not. And before anyone asks, no, you do not have a right to have others follow you religious beliefs.

The same here, "damn all" If I want to open my shop and nobody else wants it, I don't care, my right goes before everyone else his rights, "damn all" policy.

aviationaware wrote:

BMI727 wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Name one (recent, WW2 inventions don't count).

GPS.

Again, military. .

Nope. Civilian. The groundwork was done at Johns Hopkins's Applied Physics Laboratory, that also let the work on Transit, the GPS predecessor.

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

No, I believe that society can do that, society which everyone can participate in.

The principles underlying America are very clear that individuals and not society hold rights.

Dutchy wrote:

I believe the welfare of society goes before the individual

That's a dangerous belief. If society decides that its best served by making black people sit in the back of the bus or getting rid of all the Jews then then you should surely have no problem with that.

Dutchy wrote:

The same here, "damn all" If I want to open my shop and nobody else wants it, I don't care, my right goes before everyone else his rights, "damn all" policy.

Find me one person whose rights are violated by having a business open on Sunday.

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope. Civilian. The groundwork was done at Johns Hopkins's Applied Physics Laboratory, that also let the work on Transit, the GPS predecessor.

By that standard the atomic bomb is a civilian invention also.

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

No, I believe that society can do that, society which everyone can participate in.

The principles underlying America are very clear that individuals and not society hold rights.

So?! America is the universe, that is your argument? And the principles are secreted and can never be changed?

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I believe the welfare of society goes before the individual

That's a dangerous belief. If society decides that its best served by making black people sit in the back of the bus or getting rid of all the Jews then then you should surely have no problem with that.

Phhhhhh, really that is the best answer you have? Just go the extreme?

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The same here, "damn all" If I want to open my shop and nobody else wants it, I don't care, my right goes before everyone else his rights, "damn all" policy.

Find me one person whose rights are violated by having a business open on Sunday.

Right of persons to walk to the city center without all the shoppers / tourist around. The right of a shop owner (not chain) to have one day off and yes some people are still religious and want to have their shops closed in some small cities.

BMI727 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope. Civilian. The groundwork was done at Johns Hopkins's Applied Physics Laboratory, that also let the work on Transit, the GPS predecessor.

By that standard the atomic bomb is a civilian invention also.

True, the groundwork was done in the decennia before there was ever an atomic bomb. I chose to see that you finally are getting it.....

BMI727 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope. Civilian. The groundwork was done at Johns Hopkins's Applied Physics Laboratory, that also let the work on Transit, the GPS predecessor.

By that standard the atomic bomb is a civilian invention also.

which civilian lab laid the ground work and led the first implementation?

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

No, I believe that society can do that, society which everyone can participate in.

The principles underlying America are very clear that individuals and not society hold rights.

So?! America is the universe, that is your argument? And the principles are secreted and can never be changed?.

You forget that "Human rights" only exist to justify his greed, he doesn´t believe in them at all.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

BMI727 wrote:

GPS.

Again, military. .

Nope. Civilian. The groundwork was done at Johns Hopkins's Applied Physics Laboratory, that also let the work on Transit, the GPS predecessor.

best regards
Thomas

You might want to do some research on how the APL finances itself. Hint: It's not very civilian at all.

Dutchy wrote:

So?! America is the universe, that is your argument? And the principles are secreted and can never be changed?

Those principles can never be changed or the enlightenment of having sovereign citizens is over. Without that citizens are little more than slaves.

Dutchy wrote:

Phhhhhh, really that is the best answer you have? Just go the extreme?

Address the point. You say society comes first so what happens when society wants to get rid of Jews? In the worldview that you and Tommy hold, the Holocaust is just society doing that which you say it has the power to do so what wrong has been committed?

Dutchy wrote:

Right of persons to walk to the city center without all the shoppers / tourist around. The right of a shop owner (not chain) to have one day off and yes some people are still religious and want to have their shops closed in some small cities.

Nobody has those rights. The first would be a clear violation of the right to peaceably assemble. The second makes no sense because the owner of a shop can decide when to be open or not, and doing otherwise violates his property rights. And in the third case the government cannot enforce religions beliefs using the law as it is a clear violation of separation of church and state. If you believe that the government should have the power to use law to make sure people follow the religious practice of resting on Sunday, then you must also support them using law to enforce the religious view of marriage being one man and one woman. Or, in a different locale, you would surely support the government enforcing Sharia law.

tommy1808 wrote:

which civilian lab laid the ground work and led the first implementation?

Einstein and Szilard, neither of whom were working for the government at the time, had the idea for the nuclear bomb and presented the idea to the president in a letter, which he acted on. Einstein in fact never actually worked on the project.

aviationaware wrote:

You might want to do some research on how the APL finances itself. Hint: It's not very civilian at all.

This is true.

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So?! America is the universe, that is your argument? And the principles are secreted and can never be changed?

Those principles can never be changed or the enlightenment of having sovereign citizens is over. Without that citizens are little more than slaves.

Dutchy wrote:

Phhhhhh, really that is the best answer you have? Just go the extreme?

Address the point. You say society comes first so what happens when society wants to get rid of Jews? In the worldview that you and Tommy hold, the Holocaust is just society doing that which you say it has the power to do so what wrong has been committed?

Dutchy wrote:

Right of persons to walk to the city center without all the shoppers / tourist around. The right of a shop owner (not chain) to have one day off and yes some people are still religious and want to have their shops closed in some small cities.

Nobody has those rights. The first would be a clear violation of the right to peaceably assemble. The second makes no sense because the owner of a shop can decide when to be open or not, and doing otherwise violates his property rights. And in the third case the government cannot enforce religions beliefs using the law as it is a clear violation of separation of church and state. If you believe that the government should have the power to use law to make sure people follow the religious practice of resting on Sunday, then you must also support them using law to enforce the religious view of marriage being one man and one woman. Or, in a different locale, you would surely support the government enforcing Sharia law.

tommy1808 wrote:

which civilian lab laid the ground work and led the first implementation?

Einstein and Szilard, neither of whom were working for the government at the time, had the idea for the nuclear bomb and presented the idea to the president in a letter, which he acted on. Einstein in fact never actually worked on the project.

aviationaware wrote:

You might want to do some research on how the APL finances itself. Hint: It's not very civilian at all.

This is true.

As I said, no point debating with you, lost also interest in doing so, it will lead to nowhere, sorry.

Dutchy wrote:

As I said, no point debating with you, lost also interest in doing so, it will lead to nowhere, sorry.

Answer the question.

If you believe that I am so lost and obviously backwards then you should have no problems tearing apart my argument and explaining you beliefs, substantiated with facts where necessary. The fact that you (and Tommy also) cannot do so is a clear indication that your arguments are all logical dead ends that are not supported by fact, quite Trumpish indeed.

If you are as enlightened as you like to believe you are then the realization that your views have all utterly collapsed under cursory cross examination should lead you to reconsider them. It is not too late for you to become enlightened and cease existing in a septic tank of ignorance.

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As I said, no point debating with you, lost also interest in doing so, it will lead to nowhere, sorry.

Answer the question.

If you believe that I am so lost and obviously backwards then you should have no problems tearing apart my argument and explaining you beliefs, substantiated with facts where necessary. The fact that you (and Tommy also) cannot do so is a clear indication that your arguments are all logical dead ends that are not supported by fact, quite Trumpish indeed.

If you are as enlightened as you like to believe you are then the realization that your views have all utterly collapsed under cursory cross examination should lead you to reconsider them. It is not too late for you to become enlightened and cease existing in a septic tank of ignorance.

Don't want to anymore, it's like talking to a brick wall, and no, you haven't changed my views a bit, just looked at amazement that you really seem to mean what you say and that you are perfectly fine with a "damn all" society in favor of the strongest property rights.

So cost more energy than it is worth, sorry.

Dutchy wrote:

Don't want to anymore, it's like talking to a brick wall, so cost more energy than it is worth, sorry.

If you're tired of being bludgeoned with your own ignorance the best solution is to stop being ignorant.

You have no answers and no facts. Just like The Donald.

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Don't want to anymore, it's like talking to a brick wall, so cost more energy than it is worth, sorry.

If you're tired of being bludgeoned with your own ignorance the best solution is to stop being ignorant.

You have no answers and no facts. Just like The Donald.

You can't lure me into your web of your train of thoughts anymore, it is over. Perhaps Tommy is willing to play with you.

Dutchy wrote:

You can't lure me into your web of your train of thoughts anymore, it is over.

You walked into it yourself by having beliefs that are counterfactual and inconsistent. Again, it's no different than Trump does on a daily basis. You could do better, remaining mired in ignorance is a choice.

[quote="BMI727"]

If you've ever been to the emergency room then you've benefited from defense spending. Unless you believe that you are of no value, then you cannot say that such spending is of no value.

If you have ever been in the ER because of a gunshot wound to being in an accident then that is a correct statement then you are correct. Good thing too since our Second Amendment ensures that US ERs will have more gunshot wounds heading to ERs - or to the ME. It's an "American Thing".

Don't get too impressed with medical care that came from the military, The WaPo has an article on the sorry job the VA has done for women who have served. Most impressive was the woman who had lost a leg. She was given an artificial leg based on the male structure. So poor fitting that it can fall off in public.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... 87e1bddc84

If you look at non-Second Amendment or Drunk Driver ER admissions then you are going to benefit from massive spending in R&D, using government and private funds. The military didn't develop CT, MRI or PET CT machines. They are lot leading the charge in all the new technologies or drugs.

The ironic part of your comment is your identification of ER issues while ignoring the biggest ER problem that explodes health care costs in the US - the uninsured patient. Guess you never understood my comments on "cost shifting". Pity, but then you have a checkbook that will pick up the tab as it continues to explode.

Ken777 wrote:

If you have ever been in the ER because of a gunshot wound to being in an accident then that is a correct statement then you are correct. Good thing too since our Second Amendment ensures that US ERs will have more gunshot wounds heading to ERs - or to the ME. It's an "American Thing".

Actually that's not true.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2013/12/1 ... civilians/
http://taskandpurpose.com/10-medical-ad ... stan-wars/

Ken777 wrote:

Don't get too impressed with medical care that came from the military, The WaPo has an article on the sorry job the VA has done for women who have served. Most impressive was the woman who had lost a leg. She was given an artificial leg based on the male structure. So poor fitting that it can fall off in public.

The VA is a disastrous bureaucracy victimizing people who deserve far better. Makes it seem really strange, then, that you and others advocate extending a similar system to everyone.

Ken777 wrote:

The ironic part of your comment is your identification of ER issues while ignoring the biggest ER problem that explodes health care costs in the US - the uninsured patient. Guess you never understood my comments on "cost shifting". Pity, but then you have a checkbook that will pick up the tab as it continues to explode.

The solution to that is very simple: Stop requiring healthcare providers to treat whomever shows up and stop reimbursing them for doing so.

BMI727 wrote:

Stop requiring healthcare providers to treat whomever shows up.

Wow! Do you actually think about the things you write?

salttee wrote:

Wow! Do you actually think about the things you write?

Of course I do, that's why I know that such a policy must be a key tenet in fixing the healthcare system. It's easy to say that providers must treat anyone on their doorstep but in reality such demand breaks the system.

BMI727 wrote:

The fact that you (and Tommy also) cannot do so is a clear indication that your arguments are all logical dead ends that are not supported by fact, quite Trumpish indeed.

Since you fail to make a consistent argument yet, your "dead ends" are just virtual. Let's sum up:

There are just 3 human rights:
Life
Property
Conviniently forgetting that stuff you own is stolen, and/or not restore it because it is too hard

In desending order.

You havr also been part of the military, right?

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Life
Property
Conviniently forgetting that stuff you own is stolen, and/or not restore it because it is too hard

You can cross "life" of that list, I think it is more a concept of preserving life than doing something substantial to it. Probably more: against abortion and euthanasia, but when it comes to life-saving measures in medicine (no investment) or helping people with the basics if they can't provide for themselves. And he probably is pro-death penalty and the stupid 2nd amendment.
I asked him before, and no answer to it, what does it concrete mean to have the right for life.

It is the classic American way, survival of the fittest, today the wealthiest. It is a different concept of society, but different does not mean wrong in every case.

BMI727 wrote:

The solution to that is very simple: Stop requiring healthcare providers to treat whomever shows up and stop reimbursing them for doing so.

Please do.

Then tell us how it works out.

It's too easy to pontificate about muh rights and bad government behind the safety of a functioning Western democracy with a market economy.

Go fund a libertarian Utopia somewhere. I'm sure the results will be interesting to say the least.

seahawk wrote:

It is the classic American way, survival of the fittest, today the wealthiest. It is a different concept of society, but different does not mean wrong in every case.

Not in a conceptual way, but for the majority of people it is a worse kind of society, just look at where the US is in all kind of list and the northwestern part of Europe.

Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

It is the classic American way, survival of the fittest, today the wealthiest. It is a different concept of society, but different does not mean wrong in every case.

Not in a conceptual way, but for the majority of people it is a worse kind of society, just look at where the US is in all kind of list and the northwestern part of Europe.

Some people like the concept though, moving to America always was a great risk but also a huge chance.

tommy1808 wrote:

Since you fail to make a consistent argument yet, your "dead ends" are just virtual.

My argument is perfectly consistent, though practical. I'm not going to tell you the world is better than it is.

tommy1808 wrote:

Conviniently forgetting that stuff you own is stolen, and/or not restore it because it is too hard

The information to do so does not exist. And I fully support anyone with a provable claim against the government.

Dutchy wrote:

You can cross "life" of that list, I think it is more a concept of preserving life than doing something substantial to it. Probably more: against abortion and euthanasia, but when it comes to life-saving measures in medicine (no investment) or helping people with the basics if they can't provide for themselves. And he probably is pro-death penalty and the stupid 2nd amendment.
I asked him before, and no answer to it, what does it concrete mean to have the right for life.

The right to life, like other rights, is a negative right meaning that you have the right to not have it taken from you not that you have the right to demand it be given to you.

I am anti-abortion both religiously and politically. Pregnancy is unfair to women, but none of the pain or inconvenience the child inflicts on its mother are worthy of the death penalty. I am against euthanasia religiously but not politically. One's right to life includes the ability to end it, though I would not support that from a personal or religious standpoint. People exercising rights in ways I disagree with does not mean they should not have them.

I am mostly against the death penalty, largely because of its irrevocable nature (relative to time) though I don't feel strongly on the issue. If the death penalty is retained it should be reserved only for the most severe of crimes (a single murder probably doesn't cut it for me) with overwhelming evidence.

The right to bear arms should be treated like any other right in that it cannot be infringed without due process. If you feel someone will use a firearm to violate the rights of others then you should compile evidence and present it to a judge or jury.

JJJ wrote:

It's too easy to pontificate about muh rights and bad government behind the safety of a functioning Western democracy with a market economy.

Go fund a libertarian Utopia somewhere. I'm sure the results will be interesting to say the least.

Your argument is a nonstarter because I am neither an anarchist or even a libertarian.

BMI727 wrote:

The information to do so does not exist. And I fully support anyone with a provable claim against the government.

As i said, you stick to your "morals" unless it is too hard. Got that.

I am mostly against the death penalty, largely because of its irrevocable nature (relative to time) though I don't feel strongly on the issue. If the death penalty is retained it should be reserved only for the most severe of crimes (a single murder probably doesn't cut it for me) with overwhelming evidence.

and so much for the right to live being inalienable.......

BMI727 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Since you fail to make a consistent argument yet, your "dead ends" are just virtual.

My argument is perfectly consistent, though practical.

Nope. You are beyond inconsistent.Going to war, and therefore having a military at all, is a blatant human rights violation, within your philosophical framework. The legality of war, no matter if offensive or defensive, rests on the same argument that supports forcing you to pay for my health insurance.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

As i said, you stick to your "morals" unless it is too hard. Got that.

Then what's your solution? Your ideas on the matter sound a lot like Trump's math.

tommy1808 wrote:

and so much for the right to live being inalienable.......

Find where I said that there should be no criminal justice system. If you want to argue with an anarchist you'll have to go find one first.

BMI727 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

As i said, you stick to your "morals" unless it is too hard. Got that.

Then what's your solution?

spend money to find out who you have to return your property to. Thanks to DNA fingerprinting there is no problem figuring out who is who´s descendant to what percentage.

tommy1808 wrote:

and so much for the right to live being inalienable.......

Find where I said that there should be no criminal justice system..

in·al·ien·a·ble
inˈālēənəb(ə)l/Senden
adjective
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

capital punishment is taking away ones life, which is the polar opposite of being unable to do so.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope. You are beyond inconsistent.Going to war, and therefore having a military at all, is a blatant human rights violation, within your philosophical framework. The legality of war, no matter if offensive or defensive, rests on the same argument that supports forcing you to pay for my health insurance.

No it does not. The rationale for fighting a war or having a criminal justice system is to defend rights which are already existing: "Endowed by their Creator". It does not give anyone that which they did not have before. The only legitimate reason to violate one's rights is to defend rights.

Demanding other people's property to remain alive is giving you that which you did not have before. Strictly speaking, defending rights through police or military force could be privatized but that is impractical and we must have governments to perform those functions for us. This is not so with healthcare, which can be provided fully, and more competently, by private industry.

tommy1808 wrote:

spend money to find out who you have to return your property to. Thanks to DNA fingerprinting there is no problem figuring out who is who´s descendant to what percentage.

You don't know whose land it was, just whether someone has some percentage of the DNA as the group to which the owner belonged.

And whom do you compensate? The owner that had it before the government? Or the owner that the last owner took it from? The owner that had it in 1492?

tommy1808 wrote:

capital punishment is taking away ones life, which is the polar opposite of being unable to do so.

Which is why it, and any government power, should be wielded with great restraint. For Pete's sake, it's in the very next paragraph.

BMI727 wrote:

[

JJJ wrote:

It's too easy to pontificate about muh rights and bad government behind the safety of a functioning Western democracy with a market economy.

Go fund a libertarian Utopia somewhere. I'm sure the results will be interesting to say the least.

Your argument is a nonstarter because I am neither an anarchist or even a libertarian.

Then you'll have to agree that the society you have grown in and elected to stay in has decided that those rights you mention are not absolute or inalienable.

You can always run as a candidate with that program of yours though, in which case I wish you best of luck.

BMI727 wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

If you have ever been in the ER because of a gunshot wound to being in an accident then that is a correct statement then you are correct. Good thing too since our Second Amendment ensures that US ERs will have more gunshot wounds heading to ERs - or to the ME. It's an "American Thing".

Actually that's not true

Actually it is true. New doctors going through their internship year(s) rotate through the ER and learn how to handle gunshot wounds, often using techniques developed by military doctors in combat zones.


Don't get too impressed with medical care that came from the military, The WaPo has an article on the sorry job the VA has done for women who have served. Most impressive was the woman who had lost a leg. She was given an artificial leg based on the male structure. So poor fitting that it can fall off in public.[/quote]

BMI727 wrote:

The VA is a disastrous bureaucracy victimizing people who deserve far better. Makes it seem really strange, then, that you and others advocate extending a similar system to everyone.

Advocating a core level of universal care is not pushing "the VA" own everyone, but working to address the issue of cost shifting. It's not liberal. It's not conservative, It is an intelligent approach that costs taxpayers less money. Didn't you ever wonder why your private insurance polity costs more than twice what people in other countries pay? I gave you a real example before. When I had an Australian police (with dental) and a US policy without dental the US policy was $550 a month each and my Aussie policy was $88 a month, Yep, $88 a month, less than $100. The US policy was over 6 times the US policy and it was a better policy. Hard to believe that you are not concerned about US costs.

Ken777 wrote:

The ironic part of your comment is your identification of ER issues while ignoring the biggest ER problem that explodes health care costs in the US - the uninsured patient. Guess you never understood my comments on "cost shifting". Pity, but then you have a checkbook that will pick up the tab as it continues to explode.

BMI727 wrote:

The solution to that is very simple: Stop requiring healthcare providers to treat whomever shows up and stop reimbursing them for doing so.

And watch the reactions on ethics charges, contributing to the death of a patient, etc. etc. etc. A level of arrogance or the rich like before the French Revolution. At least every conservative politician who votes for that will be out of office the next time he runs. Great way to show what a failure Conservatism really is. (Or you can just watch the Trump Administration for a while.)