Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: POLITICS - The parable of Heidi's boyfriend

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

> (Seriously, my first boyfriend wiped out his car and I spent a year

> visiting him as he learned to use a wheelchair and function, sort of.

> The next two wiped out in other ways -- they were very independent

> sorts who didn't like the idea of state help until it was THEM in the

> hospital!).

And there's that old refrain again--libertarians are just a bunch of

short-sighted fools and hypocrites who change their tune as soon as they

run into a bit of trouble. Nonsense. The number of people who become

truly unable to take care of themselves through no fault of their own is

very, very small, and any responsible person can and should take steps

to make sure that he's covered in such a situation.

Being a full-fledged libertarian rather than the fair-weather variety,

I've done everything I can to make sure that I am never forced to rely

upon the state. I have half a dozen different kinds of insurance (where

was your boyfriends' insurance?). I save 30+% of my income. I avoid

high-risk behavior (can we get some more details on how and why these

" wipeouts " happened?). So tell me--how will I be brought low? Where's

the turning point in my morality play?

Besides, while I don't think that we should be forced to help even true

victims of misfortune, it's a huge leap to go from saying that

government should help these rare people to supporting the massive

European-style welfare state which you favor. I find it hard to believe

that a liberal could really be turned into welfare statist by a freak

accident (well, head injury, maybe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The number of people who become

>truly unable to take care of themselves through no fault of their own is

>very, very small, and any responsible person can and should take steps

>to make sure that he's covered in such a situation.

That might be where we differ. I've seen many, many people

who truly cannot take care of themselves -- at least not to

the point they can earn enough to pay the rent in this

high-priced market. They include:

1. Folks recovering from a car accident

2. Breast feeding mothers

3. Parents who want to raise their toddlers themselves

4. Folks with long-term illnesses such as Hepatitis C,

Aids, Chronic Fatique Syndrome

5. Most folks after they reach a certain age

6. Folks hit by long-term unemployment due to market fluctuations

>> Being a full-fledged libertarian rather than the fair-weather variety,

I've done everything I can to make sure that I am never forced to rely

upon the state. I have half a dozen different kinds of insurance (where

was your boyfriends' insurance?). I save 30+% of my income. I avoid

high-risk behavior (can we get some more details on how and why these

" wipeouts " happened?). So tell me--how will I be brought low? Where's

the turning point in my morality play?

Like I've said before, folks in your class ... earning enough

to set some aside, male, employable ... DON'T need help.

And that happens to be true for all the other self-declared

Libertarians on this list. You are either self-supporting

or (in the case of and Chris) living with parents

to support you. I did know a guy who REALLY reminds me

of you in temperment ... it got laid up in a car accident and

was hospitalized for a year, and now is permanently injured. But,

like you, he socked a bunch of money away, and fortunately

did not suffer brain injury. However, is income was in the 6 digits

and he wasn't supporting children or a spouse, and his job

is high paying basically because he's on a gov't contract that

overpays. Folks like him, and you, really don't need help.

He, like you, feels he should not have to help anyone else,

because obviously HE can handle life on his own. However,

you should be aware that the class of people who CAN do that

is a small sliver of our society.

What I have read on LIbertarianism strikes me as very

similar to Communism in the '50s -- idealistic, intellectually

elegant, and appealing to the intelligensia. Problem is,

Communism just didn't work in real life ... it only works

for small groups of intelligensia living together, I guess.

-- Heidi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@@@@@@@@@@@

> What I have read on LIbertarianism strikes me as very

> similar to Communism in the '50s -- idealistic, intellectually

> elegant, and appealing to the intelligensia. Problem is,

> Communism just didn't work in real life ... it only works

> for small groups of intelligensia living together, I guess.

>

> -- Heidi

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

As usual, I think Heidi puts in a very good showing against you lads

on ideological matters.

This last remark of hers does resonate with my own thinking. I

personally find both Libertarianism and Communism equally and highly

attractive at some purely intellectual level, but I realize it is

probably completely impossible to implement either because it would

require a path from A to B in which the inertia of cultural

entrenchments and lifestyle expectations from A would simply never

furcate into B's neighborhood. It's a topological argument.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike-

>but I realize it is

>probably completely impossible to implement either because it would

>require a path from A to B in which the inertia of cultural

>entrenchments and lifestyle expectations from A would simply never

>furcate into B's neighborhood. It's a topological argument.

I disagree. Well, not exactly -- I agree that you're correct that the path

is impossible, but the destination is also unsustainable. Both systems

rely on maintaining power vacuums, but power vacuums are unsustainable.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,

Do you mean absence of regulatory power? Personally, until someone creates a

silent vacuum cleaner, technology has it backwards. :-)

> Both systems

> rely on maintaining power vacuums, but power vacuums are unsustainable.

Wanita

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your forgot 6. sports injuries lol

I been outta work just over a year now and its because I could nto afford

the $140 a week I needed to get treatment continually.

So that has prolonged injury.

So within that time if being asked to leave my job because I was unable to

complete my daily tasks

Loosing my amex card, loosing my car ( repossessed )

So right now I cannot take care of myself properly. ( even food for the week

is tough and there is the odd day I will not eat )

Then there is elec bills ect. ARGGGGGGGhhhh

Anyone know a rich power woman who is after a toy boy lol :-)

_____

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

Sent: Tuesday, 10 February 2004 3:05 AM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - The parable of Heidi's boyfriend

>The number of people who become

>truly unable to take care of themselves through no fault of their own is

>very, very small, and any responsible person can and should take steps

>to make sure that he's covered in such a situation.

That might be where we differ. I've seen many, many people

who truly cannot take care of themselves -- at least not to

the point they can earn enough to pay the rent in this

high-priced market. They include:

1. Folks recovering from a car accident

2. Breast feeding mothers

3. Parents who want to raise their toddlers themselves

4. Folks with long-term illnesses such as Hepatitis C,

Aids, Chronic Fatique Syndrome

5. Most folks after they reach a certain age

6. Folks hit by long-term unemployment due to market fluctuations

>> Being a full-fledged libertarian rather than the fair-weather variety,

I've done everything I can to make sure that I am never forced to rely

upon the state. I have half a dozen different kinds of insurance (where

was your boyfriends' insurance?). I save 30+% of my income. I avoid

high-risk behavior (can we get some more details on how and why these

" wipeouts " happened?). So tell me--how will I be brought low? Where's

the turning point in my morality play?

Like I've said before, folks in your class ... earning enough

to set some aside, male, employable ... DON'T need help.

And that happens to be true for all the other self-declared

Libertarians on this list. You are either self-supporting

or (in the case of and Chris) living with parents

to support you. I did know a guy who REALLY reminds me

of you in temperment ... it got laid up in a car accident and

was hospitalized for a year, and now is permanently injured. But,

like you, he socked a bunch of money away, and fortunately

did not suffer brain injury. However, is income was in the 6 digits

and he wasn't supporting children or a spouse, and his job

is high paying basically because he's on a gov't contract that

overpays. Folks like him, and you, really don't need help.

He, like you, feels he should not have to help anyone else,

because obviously HE can handle life on his own. However,

you should be aware that the class of people who CAN do that

is a small sliver of our society.

What I have read on LIbertarianism strikes me as very

similar to Communism in the '50s -- idealistic, intellectually

elegant, and appealing to the intelligensia. Problem is,

Communism just didn't work in real life ... it only works

for small groups of intelligensia living together, I guess.

-- Heidi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanita-

>Do you mean absence of regulatory power?

No, I was speaking more generally, but in a sense, a regulatory vacuum will

be filled one way or another. Throughout human history we've had what are,

in effect, " regulations " . Tribes " regulated " how members lived; our more

modern regulations are just the natural outgrowths of more complex and

far-reaching social issues.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

>> The number of people who become

>> truly unable to take care of themselves through no fault of their

>> own is very, very small, and any responsible person can and should

>> take steps to make sure that he's covered in such a situation.

>

> That might be where we differ. I've seen many, many people

> who truly cannot take care of themselves -- at least not to

> the point they can earn enough to pay the rent in this

> high-priced market. They include:

>

> 1. Folks recovering from a car accident

What about insurance? How many of them were in accidents due to bad or

reckless driving? If the accidents weren't their faults, what about

court awards?

> 2. Breast feeding mothers

Where are their husbands? Anyway, having children is a choice.

> 3. Parents who want to raise their toddlers themselves

Once again, that's a choice. You shouldn't have children if you can't

afford them.

> 4. Folks with long-term illnesses such as Hepatitis C,

> Aids, Chronic Fatique Syndrome

How does the victim bear no responsibility for AIDS? One of the primary

causes of Hepatitis C is needle-sharing, but I'll give you that one

because people used to get it through blood transfusions. CFS, too,

although one has to wonder how much of that we'd have if the govenment

hadn't drilled its cockamamie nutritional recommendations into

everyone's heads from kindergarten on.

> 5. Most folks after they reach a certain age

If they were able to pay Social Security taxes, they would have been

able to save if they didn't have to pay them. This is another variation

on the break-legs-give-crutch fallacy.

> 6. Folks hit by long-term unemployment due to market fluctuations

Long-term, widespread unemployment is a phenomenon produced primarily by

government intervention in the economy, particularly the labor market.

Break-legs-give-crutch again.

> Like I've said before, folks in your class ... earning enough

> to set some aside, male, employable ... DON'T need help.

You don't think that my employability is a result of my choices? That

the studying while my classmates were out partying and using drugs don't

account for the income differential? That I just sprang from my father's

head, fully-educated and keyboard in hand? And if most people don't make

enough to set some money aside, how is it that they can afford to pay

Social Security taxes?

That said, the European-style welfare state that you're advocating does

make it much harder for anyone to make it on his own (BLGC!). When you

analyze the economics of it, there is simply no getting around the fact

that the burdensome regulations, income redistribution, and make-work

projects of the welfare state bog down economic growth. This, in turn,

slows or stops the rise of incomes, which means that the poor stay poor

for much longer than they would if you'd just leave well enough alone

and let the market do its work.

I know you don't like economics, but pay attention, because this is

important. Over the past few hundred years, productivity has risen

fairly steadily as a result of technological innovation and the

accumulation of capital goods (i.e., savings and investment). When

productivity rises, wages rise, even for unskilled labor. This--NOT

government regulation--is why it is now possible for an unskilled worker

to support himself by working forty hours per week at a much higher

standard of living than his predecessors could working twice as much a

hundred years ago. Got that?

Now, if allowed to, this process will continue to the point where it

will be possible for for an unskilled worker to support an even higher

standard of living on, say, twenty-five hours per week. The problem is

that it is not being allowed to. Burdensome regulations are impeding

productivity, particularly in the areas of housing and medicine. Wealth

redistribution and manipulation of the money supply and are pushing

savings rates to dangerously low levels. What this means, in the long

run, is that increases in productivity will slow down, or possibly even

reverse. This is very, very bad.

What this all boils down to is that these government programs which you

love so much have a cost. Those who bear the brunt of that cost are

*not* the wealthy today--they can afford it without being hurt too

badly. The ones who will pay most dearly are the lower and middle

classes of the next generation, and the one after that. They're the ones

who will have their productivity and standards of living lowered by our

frivolity today.

Now, if you still want to advocate welfare statism, I can't stop you,

but it's absolutely essential that you understand the long-term economic

effects that it has. The fact that you don't understand economics

doesn't necessarily mean that you're a bad person--I like to think of

myself as nearly decent despite my lack of expertise on celiac

disease--but it does mean that you're not particularly well-qualified to

make recommendations regarding economic policy, and I think it's very

irresponsible to pretend otherwise.

And just...don't try to play that tired old gender card, okay? We're not

living in the '50s anymore. If a woman chooses to pursue a career

full-time rather than having children, she is at no significant

disadvantage relative to men. When you play the gender card, you demean

the accomplishments of men by implying that they just had them handed to

them because of their gender, and you demean women by implying that they

cannot accomplish the same things men can.

> And that happens to be true for all the other self-declared

> Libertarians on this list. You are either self-supporting

> or (in the case of and Chris) living with parents

> to support you.

I'm pretty sure that is in his thirties. IIRC, the thing about

living with his parents was just an arrogant presumption on your part.

And of course we're either supporting ourselves or living with our

parents; what self-respecting libertarian would accept state support?

> I did know a guy who REALLY reminds me

> of you in temperment ... it got laid up in a car accident and

> was hospitalized for a year, and now is permanently injured. But,

> like you, he socked a bunch of money away, and fortunately

> did not suffer brain injury.

He sounds responsible. I have a lot of coworkers who blow their money on

fancy cars and whatnot. There are many people with high incomes who

spend every penny they get, and as a result have small troubles

magnified into huge troubles.

> However, is income was in the 6 digits

> and he wasn't supporting children or a spouse, and his job

> is high paying basically because he's on a gov't contract that

> overpays.

Do you have any reason to believe that he wouldn't still be doing well,

if not quite as well, in the private sector, or are you just saying that

to try to score points? The simple fact that he had the sense to put

some money away suggests to me that he's the kind of person who would

thrive in any environment.

> Folks like him, and you, really don't need help.

> He, like you, feels he should not have to help anyone else,

> because obviously HE can handle life on his own. However,

> you should be aware that the class of people who CAN do that

> is a small sliver of our society.

Really? What is your evidence for this? How many people do you know who:

1. Have a good work ethic

2. Studied hard and did well in school

3. Drive old cars (or none)

4. Live in (relatively) cheap housing with roommates

5. Have low entertainment budgets

6. Didn't have children until they could afford them

7. Don't drink to excess, smoke, or use drugs (even if they don't harm

performance, they're expensive)

8. Make a serious effort to live below their means in all other ways

....But are still having problems making ends meet? I know some people

who can't get their lives together, but none who meet those criteria. If

necessary, I'm pretty sure that I could get my expenses well under

$15,000 per year. Of course, it's not necessary, because I put in the

time and effort to develop marketable skills early on. Who would have

thought that hard work would pay off? What an age we live in, eh?

> What I have read on LIbertarianism strikes me as very

> similar to Communism in the '50s -- idealistic, intellectually

> elegant, and appealing to the intelligensia. Problem is,

> Communism just didn't work in real life ... it only works

> for small groups of intelligensia living together, I guess.

Do you ever get tired of saying things that make no sense? I've tried to

be respectful, but one can only take so much of this absurdity. The

theoretical flaws in communism are manifold and obvious. For one,

there's the incentive problem. Then there's the defector problem (unless

forced to stay or bound by some strong religious or philosophical

motivation, the most productive members of a commune will leave to seek

greener pastures). You have yet to make a convincing case for a single

serious flaw in libertarianism--just some vague assertions about how

hardly anyone can make it without handouts (almost certainly wrong and

definitely a strawman for reasons we've explained several times) and

nobody would help the poor if not forced to (which isn't very convincing

in light of your own proclaimed dedication to helping them.

When liberalism has been partially implemented, it has succeeded to the

degree that it has been consistent with liberal principles (US, Hong

Kong, Singapore, . When socialism has been partially implemented, it has

failed to the degree that it has been consistent with socialist

principles. Communism, occasionally works with small groups of extremely

dedicated people--usually religious sects, but has failed pretty much

everywhere else. All of the above can be explained by economics (and has

been, at great length).

, and I have written literally dozens of pages each making

the economic case for liberalism, and you've just ignored it, changed

the topic, and/or responded with blatantly fallacious arguments (for

example, the argument by false analogy in the paragraph above). When we

try to correct any of your numerous misunderstandings about

libertarianism, you simply go on to repeat the exact same thing over and

over again. Why should anyone take your conclusions about the

workability of libertarianism seriously when you have repeatedly failed

to demonstrate a basic understanding of:

1. What libertarianism is.

2. Economics.

3. The fundamental principles of sound reasoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Now, if you still want to advocate welfare statism, I can't stop you,

>but it's absolutely essential that you understand the long-term economic

>effects that it has. The fact that you don't understand economics

>doesn't necessarily mean that you're a bad person--I like to think of

>myself as nearly decent despite my lack of expertise on celiac

>disease--but it does mean that you're not particularly well-qualified to

>make recommendations regarding economic policy, and I think it's very

>irresponsible to pretend otherwise.

You know, I basically think you are an intelligent person, and

you write well, but most of this I find rather condescending

and a lot of it rather irritating ... if you want to make comments

about me personally, you can do so, but it's basically not interesting

for me to participate in.

You tend to extrapolate my position so I'd have to spend all my

time reiterating what I've said. I suppose this is a debate technique,

but why?

" And just...don't try to play that tired old gender card, okay? We're not

living in the '50s anymore. If a woman chooses to pursue a career

full-time rather than having children, she is at no significant

disadvantage relative to men "

Again, this is needlessly combative. The fact babies need breastmilk

has been studied extensively -- the fact babies need upbringing is too.

It is not a " gender card " -- it is a basic necessity for a functioning

society, unless we set up little clone machines to churn out full-functioning

pre-programmed adults.

To use your ant-program article, the theory describes ants foraging for

food. Great. Now, you also have to have a program to make sure there

are baby ants to grow up into worker ants. And that requires nurse-ants,

and a queen to pump out eggs. Every human being in our society gets his or

her start in the arms of a woman -- if that baby is fed and treated right, it

becomes a better member of society. A big chunk of those babies are

schlepped off to day care when they are a few weeks old, fed Enfamil --

because the mother cannot afford to take care of the baby AND pay rent.

" > 2. Breast feeding mothers

Where are their husbands? Anyway, having children is a choice. "

Your basic assumption seems to be " if people are smart

and resourceful enough, they won't have problems " .

A lot of people believe this -- personally I think it

is a kind of defense mechanism but in any case it is

provably not the case. At any rate, remember that by

definition, half of society is below average in IQ --

you are probably smarter and more resourceful than

99% of humanity, but do you really assume that everyone

else can live like you? You pretty much seem to think I'm

an imbecile, and I'm pretty sure even I am smarter and

more resourceful than average.

Really? What is your evidence for this? How many people do you know who:

" 1. Have a good work ethic

2. Studied hard and did well in school

3. Drive old cars (or none)

4. Live in (relatively) cheap housing with roommates

5. Have low entertainment budgets

6. Didn't have children until they could afford them

7. Don't drink to excess, smoke, or use drugs (even if they don't harm

performance, they're expensive)

8. Make a serious effort to live below their means in all other ways "

I totally agree ... anyone who can meet these criteria

will do well in a liberarian society. So all the people

who are like that can live together and have a great

society.

" , and I have written literally dozens of pages each making

the economic case for liberalism, and you've just ignored it, changed

the topic, and/or responded with blatantly fallacious arguments (for

example, the argument by false analogy in the paragraph above). "

I've read and answered as much as I have time for. ALL the

arguments so far ignore the items I've said are required

for a well-functiong society -- basically the society you

describe will function for people who are intelligent ( " do well

in school " ), responsible, have good well-functioning families.

It has little empathy or humanity, and if the general tonality

of it matches your emotions in your writing, I sure wouldn't

want to live there!

Because I disagree with you does not necessarily mean I'm

making fallacious arguments. My topics have not changed ...

I'm not arguing economics (which, as I've said, is just a little

piece of humanity). Anyway, none of you need to write reams

to " educate " me -- I have not asked to be converted or

educated AFAIK.

" > What I have read on LIbertarianism strikes me as very

> similar to Communism in the '50s -- idealistic, intellectually

> elegant, and appealing to the intelligensia. Problem is,

> Communism just didn't work in real life ... it only works

> for small groups of intelligensia living together, I guess.

Do you ever get tired of saying things that make no sense? I've tried to

be respectful, but one can only take so much of this absurdity. The

theoretical flaws in communism are manifold and obvious. For one,

there's the incentive problem. Then there's the defector problem (unless

forced to stay or bound by some strong religious or philosophical

motivation, the most productive members of a commune will leave to seek

greener pastures). You have yet to make a convincing case for a single

serious flaw in libertarianism--just some vague assertions about how

hardly anyone can make it without handouts (almost certainly wrong and

definitely a strawman for reasons we've explained several times) and

nobody would help the poor if not forced to (which isn't very convincing

in light of your own proclaimed dedication to helping them. "

This is a great example of changing the subject, since

you brought it up. The case I've been making all along is NOT

in defense of any particular kind of state (I said explicitly I

don't know the ideal form for a government, merely that it could

be modelled). I made a statement here and your response is 1) I'm

being absurd 2) Why communism is bad and 3) My lack of making

a serious case (personal attack). This is really good courtroom

technique!

But no defense of the core thing I said which is that YOUR case for

liberalism bases itself on people being smart and responsible,

like yourself ... and I say the majority of humans are not like that.

The majority of humans are silly, emotional, lack forsight,

religious, beat each other up at soccar games, have babies when

they shouldn't, marry the wrong person, get addicted to drugs and booze and

have a zillion other traits that are not in the economic model.

-- Heidi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> How does the victim bear no responsibility for AIDS?

OK, , you hit my hot button. I was a volunteer at our local AIDS

project for nearly four years (until I burned out). Blaming the

infected may make uninfected folks feel all smug and happy about how

morally superior they are, but they're wrong.

In the US, AIDS has historically been a gay male issue, and some folks

can contend if they wish that unsafe sex caused it so they should live

with it (personally, having worked with people with AIDS, I would never

be so coldhearted). Internationally this is not at all the case. And

even in the US it's not always the case.

An entire generation of hemophiliacs, thousands of people, who would

otherwise have lived even with their underlying condition, has been

wiped out by AIDS. These men were sons, brothers, husbands, fathers.

(And before you get all huffy about passing on inferior genes,

hemophilia is not passed on by hemophiliacs.)

What about children who receive it from mothers in utero? Spouses who

receive it from allegedly faithful or non-drug-abusing partners? These

are not rare statistics, these are real people, and internationally

they're a large chunk of AIDS cases.

The client I worked with had hemophilia and contracted AIDS, like many

hemophiliacs, through tainted blood products in the early '80s. He

lived with AIDS for 15 years before dying; he fought so hard I thought

he'd live forever, but he didn't. He was a year younger than me, and

I'm now 42. When you make statements like that, I see Larkey's face,

and then everything gets blurry because I start crying. And then I get

mad. And when I'm mad, I'm not very polite.

Rethink your position, . You are dead wrong.

Lynn S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> How does the victim bear no responsibility for AIDS? <<

I agree with the comments of others that not everyone with AIDS is " to blame, "

but I'll take it one step further: Who cares if they are?

I'm " to blame " for the 12 years of vegetarianism that made me obese and insulin

resistant and destroyed my gall bladder.

If someone gets sick because they were so weak that they had sex with someone

without a condom, well..... whoop di do. If that's the standard by which we

judge, there is basically no one alive who hasn't done something stupid and

life-threatening at least once. It's just that most of us escape paying the

price for that. The reason for that is luck, not virtue.

People are going to do things that harm them, knowingly, unknowingly, and

everything in between. I don't care to live in a society that doles out medical

care based on that standard. I think it's cruel and for those who don't object

to cruelty in the service of ideology, it also results in people dying in the

streets. I think that should matter to anyone, since rotting corpses in the

doorways hurt tourism and retail and of course, really do bring property values

down in the residential areas.

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christie-

>for those who don't object to cruelty in the service of ideology, it also

>results in people dying in the streets. I think that should matter to

>anyone, since rotting corpses in the doorways hurt tourism and retail and

>of course, really do bring property values down in the residential areas.

Presumably retailers and property owners should patronize their local

for-profit corpse-removal service.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,

Going further, what doesn't work in a anything living's environment, natural

and human, has to become an adaption to a more workable model. If it refuses

it will inevitably deteriorate then could break up in part or whole and

finally cease to exist. This is fact throughout history wheather it be an

extinct species or an extinct human experiment in living. Natural occurance,

no outside human intervention and mostly human intervention has made this

so. Ignore anything or anyone within whatever the whole is, ignore

responsibilty of anyone within in the whole who in any way harms anything or

anyone within that whole, not address it when its not working then

inevitably another failed human experiment is beginning.

>

> No, I was speaking more generally, but in a sense, a regulatory vacuum

will

> be filled one way or another. Throughout human history we've had what

are,

> in effect, " regulations " . Tribes " regulated " how members lived; our more

> modern regulations are just the natural outgrowths of more complex and

> far-reaching social issues.

Wanita

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW -- I need to post an apology here. Apparently

there is more than one , and I was thinking of

the 17-year old one, not the 38-year old one.

(I vote for better handles ... there IS another Heidi

too ...)

-- Heidi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is precisely why I use both my first and middle names. I'll take the

rap for whatever I've written, but I hate to take the rap for what someone

else has written.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

BTW -- I need to post an apology here. Apparently

there is more than one , and I was thinking of

the 17-year old one, not the 38-year old one.

(I vote for better handles ... there IS another Heidi

too ...)

-- Heidi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heidi,

Had a resourceful moment. Insurance is pretty lucrative and could use some

good competition. How does the familial preemptive future preserving living

wage loss insurance business sound? Employed, parenting and other

preexisting following scenarios could be a prerequisite. Could cover loss of

wages up to regional reasonable standard of living based on family size when

faced with layoffs because of bankruptcy, downsizing, union strikes or

executives needed their raise, available jobs reduce family to below

standard compensation, either parent gets injured outside of work or any

child is injured or becomes chronically ill up to standard is paid, Moms

twice could stay home breastfeeding babies, the family reimbursed until

breastfeeding ends or age 3, their choice, Mom or Dad home between weaning

to 3, special needs children addressed. Dad gets a month off to participate

with their new family, parents of insureds become long term ill and need

care their insured child gets paid to family standard. Everyone may not have

or choose to have children but they can be single parents, single people

supporting self entirely, have significant others. Most everyone still has

parents living. The real world of " what ifs " for day to day survival is

always there.

Would be expensive insurance more than likely because the statistics would

show high probability of any of the above occurring in the lifetime between

beginning work and retirement. Economic production would be compromised when

Dad or Mom has familial leave. Working in a downsized due to leave workplace

would mean working for two just like it does now after downsizing or there'd

be more for temp workers. Where would the payments come from so it would

work and be affordable? An honor system additional preagreed amount on the

premium for each above standard, non necessary, unsustainable or unhealthy

product purchased. Donations from not insureds who want to have happier,

healthier, safer communities. I could live here.

> You pretty much seem to think I'm

> an imbecile, and I'm pretty sure even I am smarter and

> more resourceful than average.

Wanita

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Would be expensive insurance more than likely because the statistics would

>show high probability of any of the above occurring in the lifetime between

>beginning work and retirement. Economic production would be compromised when

>Dad or Mom has familial leave. Working in a downsized due to leave workplace

>would mean working for two just like it does now after downsizing or there'd

>be more for temp workers. Where would the payments come from so it would

>work and be affordable? An honor system additional preagreed amount on the

>premium for each above standard, non necessary, unsustainable or unhealthy

>product purchased. Donations from not insureds who want to have happier,

>healthier, safer communities. I could live here.

Wanita:

Sounds like Sweden! Except the donations are taken out of everyone's

paycheck, and it also includes housing subsidies and paid vacation.

I think to pay for it they just don't keep much of a standing army --

they probably don't give corn subsidies either, and they might

even tax their corporations and rich people.

As an insurance system it would work IF enough people participated.

But the problem is, folks never think they need it. Even auto insurance

and house insurance ... the main reason people get it is because

it is mandatory. Except folk like who are hyper-careful and

probably have more discretionary income anyway. Do you think

he'd donate to help others that don't work as hard as him?

-- Heidi Jean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/10/04 4:17:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> You don't think that my employability is a result of my choices? That

> the studying while my classmates were out partying and using drugs don't

> account for the income differential?

Or working on a computer science degree while your list mates were working on

a history degree...

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/10/04 4:17:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> 7. Don't drink to excess, smoke, or use drugs (even if they don't harm

> performance, they're expensive)

It depends which end of the exchange you're on. They're also very

profitable.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/10/04 12:00:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Because I disagree with you does not necessarily mean I'm

> making fallacious arguments. My topics have not changed ...

> I'm not arguing economics (which, as I've said, is just a little

> piece of humanity). Anyway, none of you need to write reams

> to " educate " me -- I have not asked to be converted or

> educated AFAIK.

I think that's part of the problem. You make the false assumption that a

libertarian society would contain identical components as our society, while

ignoring the findings of economic science which show otherwise. For example,

you

assume that class divisions would be similar and own similar amounts of

wealth, while experience has shown and economic theory shows that a more

libertarian

society leads to not only a much higher growth rate, but would lead to

falling prices which causes the standards of low-wage earners to rise at the

same

proportion as high-wage earners.

In fact, I've made this point several times, and everyone on the

anti-libertarian side of the argument has completely ignored it. I don't recall

a single

response to my point that the lack of government counterfeiting, i.e. an

inflationary monetary policy, which balances falling prices due to increased

productivity by stabilizing them, would lead to prices falling as the market

would

dictate. When an economic boom causes wages to rise unevenly, like the 90s

boom, only the folks at the top benefit from increased productivity, because if

prices stay the same, you only get more if you get more money. But if prices

drop, you get more whether your income goes up or not.

You can say " well, that's fine, but my topic isn't economics, " but in fact

your topic *is* economics, because you are making the economic assumption that

the economics aren't relevant or don't have a profound effect, which is in turn

a precise, specific economic assumption that a society with and a society

without inflationary government monetary policy will not affect living standards

for the poor. Thus, by ignoring economics, you are actually arguing faulty

economics by means of implicit assumptions.

Furthermore, I've addressed other claims with evidence that have gone

unanswered. You asserted, based on pure assumption, that people were starving

in the

street left and right before the rise of the welfare state, and that

government aid added to, rather than replaced, private aid.

I provided a hefty piece of evidence showing that not only did the Red Cross

believe that government aid to their own organization would be

counter-productive, but they *refused* to accept government aid claiming they

had sufficient

funds. And THAT was at the beginning of a government-induced Great

Depression. I don't recall anyone answering this. If someone did, I missed the

post.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/10/04 12:00:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> But no defense of the core thing I said which is that YOUR case for

> liberalism bases itself on people being smart and responsible,

> like yourself ... and I say the majority of humans are not like that.

> The majority of humans are silly, emotional, lack forsight,

> religious, beat each other up at soccar games, have babies when

> they shouldn't, marry the wrong person, get addicted to drugs and booze and

> have a zillion other traits that are not in the economic model.

For some reason I don't understand, you and both seem to be transposing

assumptions upon , and I about either a) the malleability of

human nature or B) the nature of human nature, even though anything in any of

our arguments vis-a-vis this discussion of libertarianism has been based on the

same assumptions about human nature that you and use.

This was even clearer in the exchange that and I had. continually

made points about inherent characteristics of human nature, and how

libertarianism was utopian because it did not account for them, even though I

continually responded by accepting that characterization of human nature and

attempting

to show how libertarianism had mechanisms to account for and exploit those

characteristics.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here I am, the other Heidi. A little behind though, I can't keep up

with all the activity on this group...

Heidi V.

>

> BTW -- I need to post an apology here. Apparently

> there is more than one , and I was thinking of

> the 17-year old one, not the 38-year old one.

> (I vote for better handles ... there IS another Heidi

> too ...)

>

> -- Heidi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/12/04 5:36:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Well, first off, I was replying to , who was making points

> about how an organized, thoughtful person should be

> able to " make it " ok. His idea of what a person should be is FAR above most

> real persons I know.

It seemed to me like you replied with a non-sequitor. He gave a lengthy

description on why sufferings that you claim necessitate a state are a result of

choices, and you responded by saying that most people won't make the proper

choices. I really don't see how that negates the fact that their choices

precipitate a result, which is the original issue that you had brought up.

Also, if you design a massive incentive system to stimulate irresponsible

behavior, its a reasonable assumption that irresponsible behavior would

increase,

and likewise decrease if those incentives are removed.

It is extremely difficult and confusing talking

> in a list like this in a debate situation, because you, ,

> and all seem to have very different attitudes and philosophies

> although you all argue for " Libertarianism " .

I think all three of us mean the same exact thing by " libertarianism. " That

doesn't mean we agree on everything. What might do with his life

might be very different from what I would do with mine, in a libertarian

society,

but we'd both be living in a libertarian society.

>

> I disagree though, that we agree on human nature, which is the crux

> of the disagreement (and one reason I'd really like to drop this thread).

> Everything I've seen indicates that humans tend to be rather cultish

> and violent in the lack of a strong central government (of whatever sort)

> and governments require taxes.

I think you just played a logical trick. You took one form of cultism and

violence, excluded it from the pool of potential manifestations of cultism and

violence, and then claimed human's had a nature tending towards those two

characteristics in all situations except the one you excluded, which in reality

is

another manifestation of cultism and violence. It's quite clear that

government relies on two pillars in order to exist: 1) the psychological

alleigance of

its subjects (maintained by cultism) and 2) the power to punish dissenters

(maintained by violence or the threat thereof.

In fact, I think all four of us agree that human nature tends towards cultism

and violence. And all four of us agree that a desirable social system would

be one that had the proper mechanisms to pose a bulwark against that tendency

in human nature. But one of us is arguing that the easiest way (and certainly

a convenient way) of achieving that is to accept the massive use of cultism

and violence as practiced by a single entity with exemption from our moral

opposition to each, while three of us believe that the social system must

effectively prevent all forms of cultism and violence without logically cheating

to do

so.

But it's a moot point -- government isn't

> going away, regulations aren't going away, and the government's

> " monopoly on force " isn't going away, and there will be a tension

> between " local " and " central " for a lot of things for a long time until

> the right mix is hit upon.

I don't see how you can know the future.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>For some reason I don't understand, you and both seem to be transposing

>assumptions upon , and I about either a) the malleability of

>human nature or B) the nature of human nature, even though anything in any of

>our arguments vis-a-vis this discussion of libertarianism has been based on the

>same assumptions about human nature that you and use.

Chris:

Well, first off, I was replying to , who was making points

about how an organized, thoughtful person should be

able to " make it " ok. His idea of what a person should be is FAR above most

real persons I know. It is extremely difficult and confusing talking

in a list like this in a debate situation, because you, ,

and all seem to have very different attitudes and philosophies

although you all argue for " Libertarianism " .

I disagree though, that we agree on human nature, which is the crux

of the disagreement (and one reason I'd really like to drop this thread).

Everything I've seen indicates that humans tend to be rather cultish

and violent in the lack of a strong central government (of whatever sort)

and governments require taxes. But it's a moot point -- government isn't

going away, regulations aren't going away, and the government's

" monopoly on force " isn't going away, and there will be a tension

between " local " and " central " for a lot of things for a long time until

the right mix is hit upon.

-- Heidi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...