I'd hate to involve myself too deeply in this thread, but I would like to point out that blue states have been losing population to the Sunbelt for years, and I'm not sure if Obamacare is going to reverse that trend.

PS Of course, that process has also made some"red" states more "blue". It's like gentrification writ large. It will be interesting to see how things play out over the next few years.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Congratulations on displaying an adequate high-school level of reading comprehension. I'm going to call that real progress!

I'd quibble with your restatement of the second point. The three fundamental points of disagreement I identified are not (necessarily) mutually-dependent, nor are any of them particularly consequential from any other. So your introduction of point 1 into point 2 is mistaken. I would better state my own contra-Rand view regarding that second point as something along the lines, "property is a function of a context for enforcing exclusion". That context need not be government, and need not be monopoly -- it goes all the way down to "this stick is mine because it's in my closed (that is, not immediately accessible to anybody else) hand". We've got a lot of other, more nuanced modes of exclusion, but the principle remains that property -- contra Rand -- is not and cannot be an a priori.

Similarly, your restatement of the third introduced two term that seems to add nothing of value over the one I had used, while at the same time subtly shifting the context (or so it seems to me) in a way that may cause us problems down the line. Strike your word "personhood" and use the one I did -- "Person". Then further on you make what appears to be a small shift, but which actually changes the idea drastically. That is, you turn "social context" into "social construct". The first is true, the second is not. To be correct, you would state the third point as something along the lines of: "Person only exists in a social context". I've analogized before that people are social creatures in the same way that fish are aquatic creatures.



I strongly suspect otherwise, but I'm more than willing to play along on the off chance that you actually have a coherent point this time. Bearing in mind, of course, the context of the current discussion -- you falsely claimed me among a number of "Randians" (along with the ludicrous assertion that I was somehow responsible for a particular parasite coming to wield political power!); I disputed that claim; you asked for three points of fundamental difference between my worldview and the Randian one; I provided, arbitrarily ordered, the first three that came to mind.

What a funny load of horeshit.

You can always tell when a phony blowhard gets nervous, he just blows harder. He's certainly not going to give anyone just a straight answer of what HE actually believes because he's learned from many experience that path only leads to deserved ridicule.

Let's try pinning the slippery worm once again -

- you don't believe the govt should have a monopoly on sanctioned violence
- owning property requires at least the threat of violence
- a person only exist within a social context

See if you can accept these straightforward statements or offer something similar, rather than another load of silly horseshit.

If, however, what you've have done to date is all you can muster, then you really are no different than Rand Paul and all his idiot followers that also seem to have real difficulties in communicating what they really believe. Deep down, it comes from the same lack of logical thought or the shame of having such thoughts exposed. Prove me wrong by first, and at least, manning-up and providing a clear statement of what you actually believe... for once.

Could the best part of fishing be putting the worm on the hook?

Obama turned NC blue for a brief moment in time in 2008, but it has been swinging rather hard in the other direction since then...

I have a feeling this present party system has about come to its end. Where things go from here, God only knows. By the 1T I think the whole political spectrum and who lines up with whom will be completely redrawn.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Congress basically said: "Here's the lowest form of coverage you can offer, and here's how much of a person's income they can afford to pay in premiums. Now everyone, sign up or pay up anyway!"

Of course, the country is so polarized that the actual laws don't need to reflect the public discourse. It's so effective that the GOP has shut down the government because everything every insurer had ever lobbied for suddenly seems like not enough compared to how much they can get away with against this passive population.

Dude, I think we need to start with the basics to try to figure out what your basic complaint may be.

Here's a link that provides the average salaries of physicians -

http://www.profilesdatabase.com/reso...-salary-survey

- the range from just under $200K up to $500K per year.

Do you think these doctors need to provide you with their services for free?

If not, do you believe that someone else should pay them to provide these services to you?

If you do, why?

Let's just get you to clarify these very basic beliefs and then we can move on.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I'd hate to involve myself too deeply in this thread, but I would like to point out that blue states have been losing population to the Sunbelt for years, and I'm not sure if Obamacare is going to reverse that trend.

PS Of course, that process has also made some"red" states more "blue". It's like gentrification writ large. It will be interesting to see how things play out over the next few years.

Linear extrapolations tend to be proven wrong; most often because they pay no mind to the underlying cause and effects.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Dude, I think we need to start with the basics to try to figure out what your basic complaint may be.

Here's a link that provides the average salaries of physicians -

http://www.profilesdatabase.com/reso...-salary-survey

- the range from just under $200K up to $500K per year.

Do you think these doctors need to provide you with their services for free?

If not, do you believe that someone else should pay them to provide these services to you?

If you do, why?

Let's just get you to clarify these very basic beliefs and then we can move on.

Do you want me to start off with the axiom that doctors are extremely rare and their salaries are extremely expensive, or do we actually get to consider the myriad of policy choices, regulations, captured industries, and corrupt deals that created this "basic belief?"

I do find it interesting how quickly you switch to your own version of Randian philosophy, questioning one's sense of entitlement when one tries to point out inefficiencies caused by corruption.

And why would you invest so much time - and your party's political reputation - on an unpopular bill that feeds on said corruption? Hmm? Who is acting entitled, here?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah I really don't understand WTF is wrong with the Repubs. You think they'd be more than happy to have this stupid new plan in place. The main argument I've heard is that they don't want people to have to pay for birth control/abortions. But they don't mind forcing people to pay for everything else, the bastards.
And why the hell are Democrats so hell-bent on funneling money to insurance companies?
I think both parties are more interested in pissing off the other party than anything else. They all need to pull their heads out of their asses and look around.

Such 'observations' could only come from one who has been completely clueless for years about what has been happening in Congress.

That's alright, a lot of people are too busy to spend the time to know what is going on.

What's weird, however, is such a person believes (outside of issues dealing with Syria) there is some other mechanism that causes her complaints.

Even more weird when such a person has expressed that there are no valid complaints.

Somebody is obviously confused.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Do you want me to start off with the axiom that doctors are extremely rare and their salaries are extremely expensive, or do we actually get to consider the myriad of policy choices, regulations, captured industries, and corrupt deals that created this "basic belief?"

I do find it interesting how quickly you switch to your own version of Randian philosophy, questioning one's sense of entitlement when one tries to point out inefficiencies caused by corruption.

And why would you invest so much time - and your party's political reputation - on an unpopular bill that feeds on said corruption? Hmm? Who is acting entitled, here?

Ah, another slippery worm.

We can get to those complexities, in time.

Let's just get clear the very basic - do you expect a free lunch?

Pretty simple, yes/no.

Let's get that clarified, and then we can move onto something more complex as you're suggesting.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Let's just get clear the very basic - do you expect a free lunch?

Pretty simple, yes/no.

No, but I expect that, when I'm asked to chip in to help buy everyone lunch, everyone is going to get lunch. Or, that there would be at least a little for myself and the other people being expected to chip in more than average.

It looks like the folks we sent to grab the pick-up botched the order on purpose so they could pocket the difference.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah I really don't understand WTF is wrong with the Repubs. You think they'd be more than happy to have this stupid new plan in place. The main argument I've heard is that they don't want people to have to pay for birth control/abortions. But they don't mind forcing people to pay for everything else, the bastards.
And why the hell are Democrats so hell-bent on funneling money to insurance companies?
I think both parties are more interested in pissing off the other party than anything else. They all need to pull their heads out of their asses and look around.

Well the GOP money people were cultivating the crazies because the crazies turned out to vote pretty consistently.

Then at some point recently... the money people just sort of... lost control.

The good news is that corporate money is drying up for the GOP. The bad news is that corporate money is flowing to the Democrats instead.

So we have a crazy far-right party vs. a corporate middle-right party. Those seem to be our choices for the 4T?

"Crazy far-right party vs. a corporate middle party." To get enough support for change, a party that deviates from these would have to emphasize economics.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

No, but I expect that, when I'm asked to chip in to help buy everyone lunch, everyone is going to get lunch. Or, that there would be at least a little for myself and the other people being expected to chip in more than average.

It looks like the folks we sent to grab the pick-up pocketed half the cash for their next re-election campaigns.

Okay, you're willing to pay. Also, your referral to 'chipping in' would suggest you don't necessarily have a problem with being part of a collective in order to get a benefit at perhaps lower cost. Is that correct?

Are you okay with the notion of probability or risk that some people in that collective will get more benefit because they were unfortunate enough (got sick or injured) to need it? You do understand that if you accept the notion of risk that some people who paid less into the collective might wind up getting more? If that upsets you, is there a way to placate you with perhaps less out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for you paying more?


You do understand that this is the basic tenet of insurance - whether that insurance is provided by private insurers (Blue Cross) or by a govt insurer (Medicare)?

Or you truly able to live with the notion of insurance - that you will pay, and you may pay more for less actual benefits delivered than someone who paid less? Or, do you truly want to be on your own, but you want it to be a free lunch? Is there another choice?

Originally Posted by TimWalker

"Crazy far-right party vs. a corporate middle party." To get enough support for change, a party that deviates from these would have to emphasize economics.

Yeah, but the debate has already been framed by the politically connected media outlets: "The corporate middle is EuroCommunism, the crazy far-right is American traditionalism."

The framing doesn't really match reality, but that's just one sign of a larger-than-usual scam-in-progress.

Yeah; I didn't figure you were telling the truth back all of one exchange ago when you hinted at wanting a constructive dialogue. We know that liars lie, but even the best of us can fall prey to that temptress optimism.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You can always tell when a phony blowhard gets nervous, he just blows harder.

Though I do love the self-referentials .

- you don't believe the govt should have a monopoly on sanctioned violence
- owning property requires at least the threat of violence
- a person only exist within a social context

You've not only failed to improve your accuracy on the third point... you've managed to move the first one further away than your original guess (odd, since I indicated-through-not-arguing that your summary on that point was pretty much right) and managed to score a mu on the second.

Allow me to re-restate for you. Perhaps you'll actively listen this time?

My positions which conflict with the basic Randian points I identified to you:

• a monopoly on the rightful initiation of force is neither necessary nor desirable (arguably, there's no such thing as a rightful initiation of force, but that's a bit of a tangential issue)
• The concept of "property" is meaningless without some context for exclusion
• "Person" can only exist in a social context, and does not exist absent one.

-

See if you can accept these straightforward statements...

See... the reason I don't simply accept your straightforward statements is because they are wrong. Aside from which, They don't say what I'm saying.

...or offer something similar.

"Similar" - another word without meaning absent context. I'd call all out attempts at statements 'similar'. Just not the same or even really roughly the same.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Linear extrapolations tend to be proven wrong; most often because they pay no mind to the underlying cause and effects.

Agreed, but low taxes/cost of living and a scant social safety net have been features of much of the Sunbelt for generations, and yet people moved there from the North in droves. Like I said, I don't think ObamaCare is likely to reverse the push/pull factors. Doesn't mean that things will carry on as is ad infinitum, but I don't think the health insurance thing alone is going to change it.

Gah, I'm getting pulled in.

- the range from just under $200K up to $500K per year.

Do you think these doctors need to provide you with their services for free?

No, but are these (highly educated and exhaustively trained) people really necessary to perform most healthcare functions? How about the extent to which these people's salaries are inflated by education requirements + the capping by Medicare of the number of residency slots offered each year?

This is the type of stuff I think of when I think about "bloat in the system", among other things. A regulation that all cars have seatbelts and airbags is one thing, a mandate that the bulk of vehicles on the road be BMWs (with a cap in the growth of vehicles per year, subsidies to help a fraction of the poor pay for BMWs, certain BMW-only roads, etc.) quite something else. If I may be permitted an analogy.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Agreed, but low taxes/cost of living and a scant social safety net have been features of much of the Sunbelt for generations, and yet people moved there from the North in droves. Like I said, I don't think ObamaCare is likely to reverse the push/pull factors. Doesn't mean that things will carry on as is ad infinitum, but I don't think the health insurance thing alone is going to change it.

No, but the loss of Federal government services just might.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

No, but the loss of Federal government services just might.

Is this the Divided States of America thing again? Is the growing consensus here that this is inevitable? What do y'all make of things like this, then? This?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Is this the Divided States of America thing again? Is the growing consensus here that this is inevitable? What do y'all make of things like this, then? This?

Pretty much. In STL Bosnians and Hispanics are doing what Dayton has for nearly 20 years. More de facto, than de jure separation.

good TV Tropes reference.

Pretty much. In STL Bosnians and Hispanics are doing what Dayton has for nearly 20 years. More de facto, than de jure separation.

There are similar things going on here in Indy, and a whole mess load of it in NYC. That's what I mean when I say the lines in 20 years are going to look a lot different.

And yes, I totally see a lot of devolution/federalism going to happen, in particular in light of things like this, plus peakoil/globalization. (Yes, it'sbeen a good day today for the Times.)

good TV Tropes reference.

Thank you. Sometimes it seems like you don't realize that geekdom went fairly mainstream a long time ago, and the posters here (posters anywhere, really) are a lot geekier than most.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

That depends entirely on where the crew chooses to mutiny.

So life will be good on Pitcarin Island, and a life of bliss will be enjoyed by all. OK.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So life will be good on Pitcarin Island, and a life of bliss will be enjoyed by all. OK.

Just remember to divide the women up fairly the first time, and don't try and steal anybody else's afterwards. Most of the Pitcairn guys ended up killing each other.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

There are similar things going on here in Indy, and a whole mess load of it in NYC. That's what I mean when I say the lines in 20 years are going to look a lot different.

And yes, I totally see a lot of devolution/federalism going to happen, in particular in light of things like this, plus peakoil/globalization. (Yes, it'sbeen a good day today for the Times.)



Thank you. Sometimes it seems like you don't realize that geekdom went fairly mainstream a long time ago, and the posters here (posters anywhere, really) are a lot geekier than most.

Your guy's article in the NYT- he seems to be more optimistic than *I* am.

Yes, us old geeks still suffer from the delusion that we have to stay hidden. As I have said before, we could have a fair little game convention on this board.

Yeah, I see a lot more Elysium/Parable of the Sower stuff, minus the space.

Ahh, space, the final frontier... Having that dream die on me in my 20s has been really depressing.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Yeah, I see a lot more Elysium/Parable of the Sower stuff, minus the space.

Ahh, space, the final frontier... Having that dream die on me in my 20s has been really depressing.

It's a 1T/2T dream in any case. Stick around. You're still young enough to make it to Mars and die there. That seesm to be the plan for Mars Manned Mission 1 ... and the following two or three, I'll wager.