By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.
-The Southern Manifesto, Cong. Rec., 84th Cong. 2d Session, Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956)
‘This was an activist court that you saw today. Anytime the Supreme Court renders something constitutional that is clearly unconstitutional, that undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court. I do believe the court’s credibility was undermined severely today.”
-Michele Bachmann (R. Minn.), June 26 2012
Most people are familiar with the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al., 349 U.S. 483 (1954), in which a unanimous Supreme Court summarily outlawed public school segregation by tersely declaring, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” 349 U.S. at 495. But many people do not know that Brown involved a consolidation of cases from four states. The “et al.” in the style refers to decisions on similar facts in Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. And the response of Virginia to the ruling in Brown provides an interesting comparison with the actions leading to the current government shutdown.
In 1951 the population of Prince Edward County, Virginia was approximately 15,000, more than half of whom were African-American. The county maintained two high schools to accommodate 386 black students and 346 white students. Robert R. Moton High School lacked adequate science facilities and offered a more restricted curriculum than the high school reserved for white students. It had no gym, showers or dressing rooms, no cafeteria and no restrooms for teachers. Students at Moton High were even required to ride in older school buses.
Suit was filed in federal district court challenging the Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions mandating segregated public schools. Although the trial court agreed that the school board had failed to provide a substantially equal education for African-American students, it declined to invalidate the Virginia laws, concluding that segregation was not based “upon prejudice, on caprice, nor upon any other measureless foundation,” but reflected “ways of life in Virginia” which “has for generations been a part of the mores of the people.” Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 103 F. Supp. 337, 339 (E.D. Va. 1952). Instead, the court ordered the school board to proceed with the completion of existing plans to upgrade the curriculum, physical plant and buses at Moton High School. When the plaintiffs took an appeal from the decision, the Democratic machine that had for many years controlled Virginia politics under the firm hand of Sen. Harry Byrd had little reason to believe that “ways of life” that had prevailed since the end of the Reconstruction era would soon be declared illegal.
When the Brown decision was announced, the reaction in Virginia was shock, disbelief and anger. Reflecting the prevailing attitudes, the Richmond News Leader railed against “the encroachment of the Federal government, through judicial legislation, upon the reserved powers of the States.” The Virginia legislature adopted a resolution of “interposition” asserting its right to “interpose” between unconstitutional federal mandates and local authorities under principles of state sovereignty. And Sen. Byrd organized a campaign of opposition that came to be known as “Massive Resistance.”
In August of 1954 a commission was appointed to formulate a plan to preserve segregated schools. Late in 1955, it presented its recommendations, including eliminating mandatory school attendance, empowering local school boards to assign students to schools and creating special tuition grants to enable white students to attend private schools. Enabling legislation was quickly adopted and “segregation academies” began forming around the state. Subsequent legislation went even further by prohibiting state funding of schools that chose to integrate.
In March of 1956, 19 senators and 77 house members from 11 southern states signed what is popularly known as “The Southern Manifesto,” in which they declared, “Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.”
Throughout this period the Prince Edward County schools remained segregated, but when various court rulings invalidated Virginia’s various attempts to avoid integration, the school board took its final stand. It refused to authorize funds to operate any schools in the district, and all public schools in the county were simply closed, and remained closed from 1959 to 1964.
There are striking similarities between Sen. Byrd’s failed plan of Massive Resistance and Republican efforts to prevent implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There was widespread confidence among conservatives that the Supreme Court would declare the Act unconstitutional. When that did not occur, legislators such as Michele Bachmann, quoted above, attempted to deny the legitimacy of the Court’s ruling. Brent Bozell went further, denouncing Chief Justice Roberts as “a traitor to his own philosophy,” hearkening back to the days when southern roadsides were replete with billboards demanding the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
The House of Representatives has taken over 40 votes to repeal the ACA, quixotic efforts pursued for reasons known only to John Boehner and his colleagues. And in accordance with the Virginia legislative model, the House has attempted to starve the ACA by eliminating it from funding bills. Following the failure of these efforts, Republicans have elected to pursue the path ultimately taken by the school board of Prince Edward County and have shut down the government.
Even the strategy followed by Republicans is largely a southern effort. Approximately 60% of the Tea Party Caucus is from the South. Nineteen of the 32 Republican members of the House who have been instrumental in orchestrating the shutdown are from southern states. It is hardly surprising therefore, that the current impasse is characterized by the time-honored southern belief in nullification theory as a proper antidote to disfavored decisions by a congressional majority.
In reflecting upon the experience of Virginia many years later, former Gov. Linwood Holton noted, “Massive resistance … served mostly to exacerbate emotions arrayed in a lost cause.” Republicans would do well to ponder the wisdom in that observation.
DavidM:
As far as I know, it is mine. Although there is really nothing new, so who knows.
You think you have an original thought and then you go and read some old dead guy and find out he was thinking the same thing 2,000 years before you were born.
I recently saw a new teaching company course for sale and it was touted as some new fangled way of thinking about human relations [if I remember correctly], upon scrutiny of the syllabus, it proved to be nothing more than Aristotle’s Rhetoric brought up to date with a little added.
Or like the Great Gatsby, nothing more than a retread of that magnificent, timeless novel Wuthering Heights.
I am sure you understand more than most, I am sure you also know where your ideas come from. I cant say the say same about Tony C and Gene H, they think their ideas are oh so modern and dont understand that what they shill for has been tried and has failed throughout history. They dont even understand their perceptions of the 19th century and early 20th century have been carefully crafted fiction.
Considering we are arguing against economic tyranny, that simply evokes a belly laugh, Bron. That’s the problem with most Libertarians. You argue for economic tyranny in the guise of personal freedom and many times you aren’t even cognizant of doing it. And I’ll point out that reading does not correspond to either retention of integrated knowledge, neither of which David has illustrated. Then again, practitioners of partial knowledge and confirmation biases flock together.
Also, I wouldn’t have to cite OED so much if either of you knew the meanings of the words you use. But you don’t. So I do.
However, I’ve not cited OED here. I’ve cited 35 years of integrated knowledge gained from reading poli sci, history, economics and law. That is why I “do nuance” and neither of you two like that the details belie your lack of understanding of basic terminology let alone contextual understanding.
DavidM:
pragmatism and utilitarianism reign supreme with this bunch.
The meaning of is, is whatever suits them best at a particular time.
They embrace tyranny like a sailor on leave embraces a harlot; not understanding she is a whore whom they have to pay until it is to late.
Bron wrote: “They embrace tyranny like a sailor on leave embraces a harlot; not understanding she is a whore whom they have to pay until it is to [sic] late.”
What an interesting, thought-provoking analogy. Is it original with you?
DavidM:
“I suspect that the OED is your primary reference for most arguments you make.”
I have long suspected that but to his credit, he does use wikipedia and huffington post so you are being a little harsh on him. 🙂
And I will say, you are remarkably well read. Without a doubt in my mind. Far more than anyone who posts here except possibly Mespo and Bob, Esq.
David,
You can continue to think you know what you’re talking about all you like.
Those of us who actually do know what we’re talking about know better.
You are just as wrong as Bron when he conflates fascism and socialism, but you just use a lot more words to be wrong with.
Skip says: When you know something is wrong and you do things to protect your interests, rather than risk your life, liberty and fortunes, that is no better than the unethical methods the oligarchs use themselves.
A fair enough criticism, if that is what I were doing.
But it isn’t. Unlike you guys, I do not consider my taxes too high, in fact they should be twice as high. I would gladly pay the full rates in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, or Germany, (all high tax rates countries with excellent safety nets) to make the USA more Socialist.
As it stands, about 75% of my taxes go to support programs I believe in; including social security, medicare, medicaid, about 7% for debt service (and I only have minor quibbling issues about our debt levels), and all but a few of the “discretionary spending” agencies, education, national science foundation, EPA, SNAP spending, and so on.
The 25% in contention is related to overblown military and Intelligence expenditures, what I consider corrupt tax breaks and deductions and subsidies for corporations, federal involvement in for-profit enterprises, and so on.
Another 10% might be gained by efficiency and policing, but that is about it.
25% is not enough for me to revolt. It is enough to irritate me, and in some egregious instances anger me, but I would not end all aid because I paid for 400 hungry people to get sandwiches and some rich jerk pocketed the money for 100 of the sandwiches just because he could.
The irritation makes me want to do something about fixing the system, not abolish the system. It causes me to work on understanding the corruptive problems from a scientific perspective instead of an emotional perspective, because I believe doing that affords more opportunity to invent and devise fixes.
Revolt would do nothing but massive harm if there were no workable system to replace it. For me to support any change the goal must be workable in my eyes, and I must believe it is workable in the eyes of a super-majority of fellow Americans, otherwise it is just a tyranny worse than what we already have. I haven’t seen that system yet.
Skip says: The house of cards I’m obviously referring to are computer credits and debits, controlled by the central and investment banks that represent pieces of paper with Federal Reserve Note printed on them. It cost about $0.04 to print one and they have lost 97.31% of their value to date.
In a hundred years? That would be an inflation rate of 3.55% per year, which is fine with me.
Regardless, I don’t care about that, I think it is a red herring of the greed-soaked. Inflation is not that bad, debt is not that bad. Basic investment still provides a long term average return two or three times the real inflation rate; and modern Americans have access to such investments if they have excess wealth. If they don’t have excess wealth, inflation shouldn’t bother them too much, and wouldn’t at all if we had a better safety net.
Inflation reduces the purchasing power of two financial instruments: Cash parked in low-return or no-return accounts (for the average consumer, checking, savings, CDs) and the holders of fixed-interest debt: Not the debtors, but the lenders, which are primarily the wealthy, albeit indirectly, that funded multi-year consumer loans for houses, cars, furniture and education.
Inflation reduces the purchasing power of the payments on such loans, and that redounds to the benefit of the consumer debtors; as their pay demands increase with inflation, their loan payments do not, and they end up working fewer minutes to make the fixed loan payment. In other words, every year the house payment becomes less and less of a percentage of their take-home pay, even if their pay is just keeping up with inflation on the items they routinely buy.
Inflation rates of around 3-4% affect primarily the rich that own middle class debt, and secondarily the poor that have no debt and whose pay does not keep pace with inflation. The benefits of inflation go to the middle class that has more fixed-interest debt than they do low-to-no interest savings. That level of low-to-no interest savings is unlikely in America, where most “savings” are in the form of 401Ks or mutual funds which are typically invested in financial instruments that at least keep up with inflation. (And if one worries about inflation, yet another reason to avoid investment in companies that own loans or bonds and are exposed to significant levels of fixed-interest debt.)
For the poor, we can correct much of the harm of inflation by tying the minimum wage to the inflation rate, as I think it should have been all along.
Tony C. The problem with your analysis is that you assumed I was indicating, since before gold was stolen by FDR in 1933 from the American people. I will therefore “assume” then, that you are OK with that action by FDR. and that you do not understand it was unconstitutional nor care that nobody in the ruling oligarchy stopped the unlawful confiscation.
The 97.31% decline in the value of the $USD was from 1973, when Nixon was forced to renegotiate the value of the $USD during the oil embargo and allow gold to start floating. Inflation is just another hidden tax so I will assume that you have not problem with it. What policies the oligarchy is instituting, you are fine with because they are obviously looking out after the best interest of the majority and our democracy is working just fine in your opinion.
I have been using you and Gene H. specifically to see if I could get you two to understand some of the socio-economic concepts I’ve been formulating. There appears to be a distinct divide between those that consider themselves educated and the average Joe on the street as to the understanding of socio-economic terms and phrases and my mission was to try to close this divide. Obviously, I have not been successful in my endeavor.
Apparently Voltaire was right: “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere”, not matter their level of perceived education.
Opinion of Subjects:
!. show no real inclination to introduce or evaluate ideas for potential improvement or change.
2. show signs of mean spirited/sociopathic or psychopathic intentions. – Subjects are actually debating the differences in terms.
3. winning appears more important than truth.
4. argues irrelevant or unimportant positions
5. never answers questions posed by opponents.
6. uses various methods such as logical fallacies to thwart harmonious debate.
Opinion of Individuals: trolls, serious character flaws or both.
Experiment discontinued with current subjects as subjects pose no potential benefit.
Skip: I’ll enter into a contract to protect individual rights. Socialist though will not generally do so.
I am already committed to a prior arrangement, Skip, to the contract with the people of the United States of America. I pay my taxes every year, through CPAs, without dodges or subterfuge or shelters. Mine are significant, I typically write a five figure check, despite other withholdings. That’s okay with me.
Tony C. That says a lot. I know you understand that acquiescence to fascism and communism is one of the major elements the ruling oligarchies rely on to maintain their controls. I can’t blame you, but I only ask that you refrain from discouraging others, as you have been. When you know something is wrong and you do things to protect your interests, rather then risk your life, liberty and fortunes, that is no better than the unethical methods the oligarchs use themselves. There are always those well off under even the most totalitarian regimes and they are complicit to the tyranny that exists. Conduct yourself accordingly.
But know that we, as a nation are teetering on a fulcrum being held up by a house of cards, as are a number of other countries facing similar socio-economic problems. In 1913 the US was the final government within the industrialized world to be bought out and therefore controlled by the central bankers and they meet every two months at Basil Switzerland at the BIS. Understanding the influences that the major central bankers have on the world is of grave importance.
The house of cards I’m obviously referring to are computer credits and debits, controlled by the central and investment banks that represent pieces of paper with Federal Reserve Note printed on them. It cost about $0.04 to print one and they have lost 97.31% of their value to date.
DavidM says: It must therefore follow that a person who gets away with not being punished by the law has established for himself a right
No, it does not therefore follow. The Right is an agreement by society; trickery to get away with something does not create an agreement.
DavidM says: From a theistic perspective,
I think theism is fantasy and fiction. You are welcome to believe in them, I prefer to believe in more tangible things that can be manipulated and engineered with concrete and repeatable results. Relying on imaginary punishments, particularly ones delivered only after death, is not a practical solution, in my view. The worst and most violent criminals on the planet are not swayed at all by such arguments; but do respect actual force.
A Right is an agreement by the majority. It cannot be created by an individual without that agreement, no matter what they do. a Capability to do something does not make that action a Right. I am physically capable of murder, that does not make murdering a Right. I am intellectually capable of evading taxes, that does not make it my Right. You seem to confuse an ability to do something with the Right to do something; and you seem to confuse an ability to evade punishment with an agreement by society that you should NOT be punished.
You cannot create a Right by your own action. A Right is an agreement by society to A) Not punish you for act X, and B) Punish others if they restrain you or punish you or threaten you for act X, and C) obligates you to contribute your fair share of such punishment (or its cost).
No act on your own accomplishes that agreement unilaterally. Evading taxes is a crime; a violation of the Rights of others, it is free riding on your agreement allowing you to enjoy your Rights and protections without meeting your obligations to others. Getting away with a crime does not confer some Right, it is just a failure of imperfect law enforcement to catch you and punish you.
Tony C wrote: “The Right is an agreement by society; trickery to get away with something does not create an agreement.”
But what you argued before was that society agrees to a right that a person has, but then government abrogates that right anyway, then the person’s right really does not exist. You are arguing from pragmatism. I am simply saying that using that logic, the converse then would also hold true, that when an individual gets away with doing what he perceives to be his right, then by the law of pragmatism that you embrace, he has created for himself a right. If a person losing his right by the action of government is valid, then a person gaining a right by the inaction of government is valid.
*** Caveat ***
I hate to have to say this, but this is NOT my argument. I know as soon as I express my perception of logic of what somebody else says, somebody will criticize me as if I was making the point. I am a theist and I believe that the theist position of rights, such as found in the Declaration of Independence upon which our country was founded, and upon which we waged a war to separate ourselves from the societal agreement with England, is the better, more logically consistent system of understanding of rights.
Skipper,
Like most of what you say, that was complete gibberish. You should know I generally don’t read anything you post because of that.
David,
It’s not my fault you can’t understand basic terminology – despite it being explained to you many times at this point. An argument isn’t wrong simply because it may contain elements of semantics. If your definitions are garbage – and yours are – pointing out that they are wrong as a matter of fact is substantive criticism and a failing of yours. Quit using words in the wrong way and I’ll quit pointing it out. Semantic disputes wouldn’t happen if you knew what you were talking about. But you don’t. So it does.
You may feel like you’re talking to children, but I feel like I’m talking to a tennis shoe.
Gene H wrote: “If your definitions are garbage – and yours are – pointing out that they are wrong as a matter of fact is substantive criticism and a failing of yours.”
Substantive? Hardly. My definitions are accurate, but being that I am well-read, I understand how others have limited understandings of words and may use them in a more narrow or broad sense. In particular, you have demonstrated a very shallow understanding of fascism. For the most part it appears that you basically equate fascism with an authoritative economic system favoring an oligarchy. You have not pointed out how any of my definitions are wrong. Instead, you have dogmatically declared them wrong from your own perceived high horse of authority. Arguing from authority is your preferred method of making comments.
For example, I pointed out how fascism is primarily a political term, defining an entire governmental and societal mindset of unity, whereas socialism is primarily an economic term, defining a system of economics whereby society owns or regulates the means of production. When socialism is a term used politically, it does so with economic goals in mind. You have basically simply said no, they are both political and economic terms, thereby blurring the true understanding of these words.
I have provided much evidence for my understanding of fascism from The Doctrine of Fascism, and I have compared its doctrine to the doctrine surrounding socialism. I also have pointed out that scholars disagree upon exactly what economic system fascism favors, whereas no such disagreement exists with socialism although there are many types of socialism for how to accomplish it. In contrast, you have provided no definition at all and simply declared by your own invented dogma that I am wrong. Such is not substantive criticism. Anybody who can read the Oxford English Dictionary could form just as deeply an understanding of these issues as you have. I suspect that the OED is your primary reference for most arguments you make.
DavidM: Using this logic, the converse would be true also, that if someone cheats on their taxes and gets away with it, then the law is meaningless and only his perceived right not to be required to pay taxes matters.
No, the converse is not true. If someone cheats on their taxes they RISK getting caught, and some of them do. Using your flawed logic, all laws are meaningless, including laws against murder, theft, fraud, rape, etc, because people have gotten away with all those crimes.
Yet obviously the law still means something, and without the risk of being caught and punished the incidence of all those crimes would escalate. The law acts as a deterrent, there is the threat of being punished.
That is not true for a Right that is not acknowledged by the people; the existence of a Right to be untaxed (in a person’s mind) does not deter the collective from taxing them anyway, or threatening to punish them for cheating. Sometimes logic is reversible; but not this time.
Tony C.
Please stop regurgitating sociology 101 and give us something we don’t already know. Now your flat out lying. “Using your flawed logic, all laws are meaningless, including laws against murder, theft, fraud, rape, etc, because people have gotten away with all those crimes.”
Tony C. I’ll enter into a contract to protect individual rights. Socialist though will not generally do so. Are you wiling to sign the non-aggression axiom or not?.
Tony C – you assert that a person’s right is meaningless if the government does not recognize that right through law and acts against it. It must therefore follow that a person who gets away with not being punished by the law has established for himself a right by virtue of not being caught. I don’t agree with the premises of your logic, but I point to this corollary because it shows how problematic your assertion is.
From a theistic perspective, natural rights are instilled within the individual, and individuals will be judged based upon how they act in accordance with those rights. The individuals responsible for laws and actions that hurt an individual by infringing upon his rights will be judged by the Creator. That is why from the theistic perspective, the concept of individual rights has meaning. Subsequent generations have the ability to correct the error.
I am not trying to push upon you my theistic perspective. I am just trying to understand your perspective, and this standard of establishing rights which you present seems to have a logical problem. You claim that the corollary does not exist, but it seems inescapable. Maybe you have an unspoken premise.
Skip: What is interesting is that you still don’t appear to get the basic concepts.
You are the one that does not appear to get the basic concepts. When we (Gene and I) have been talking about Socialism we have never talked about any drug war or anything of the sort, we have never talked about Government owning the Means of Production, we have never talked about anything remotely close to Fascism, we do not even believe in central control or planning of the economy, and yet you still insist upon moronically charging ahead with those definitions or characteristics as if we endorse them and embrace them. We do not. Get that basic concept. Read what we wrote. There are dozens of flavors of Socialism, not ONE definition, and we do not believe in that form of “socialism.” [and I am sure Gene will correct me if I have misrepresented his views.]
That is why it is like talking to a child; you guys think you can Google up some dead man’s definition of Socialism and pin that on us, and that is not what we mean by Democratic Socialism mixed with Capitalism AT ALL.
The economy of Norway is not centrally controlled, it is capitalistic in nature. It is highly taxed. The government covers school for free (at all levels and as much as you want), the government covers health care for free (and pays doctors, nurses and hospital personnel market rate wages), the government has extensive aid programs for shelter and food. They provide an extensive retirement income.
The Norwegian government does own hospitals and equipment, but does not prohibit competition with their free health care, which does occur. (Some people will pay to not wait, or for house calls, etc.)
Despite all this aid, and the fact that you could live in Norway indefinitely on the government dime, their unemployment rate is less than half our rate; their worker productivity and GDP is significantly higher than ours; their rate of entrepreneurship (both attempted and successful) is higher than ours; their self-assessment of their happiness with life is much higher than ours; their homelessness and poverty rates are nearly nonexistent. They have multi-millionaire, deca-millionaire, and centi-millionaire business owners, some of whom live like royalty in palatial estates on private mountains or with private lakes.
That is modern Socialism mixed with Capitalism. Nobody starves, nobody goes uneducated except by choice, nobody is homeless except by choice, and because human psychology has built-in incentives to work for luxuries and entertainment.
So no, I am not going to discuss the Socialism I advocate as if it is the Socialism you want to denigrate and argue against. They aren’t the same thing. I repeat what I said earlier; I do not believe in central control, I do not believe in the state owning the “means of production,” I do not believe in the state colluding with corporations on increasing profit.
If you want to argue against me, I don’t mind, but I will not stand in for Marx or some other ancient fool, I will only argue for the modern Socialism mixed with Capitalism that I have described and I believe in.
Tony C:
The way reason, there are no rights. Unless of course the super-majority says so.
Bron: It is wrong because a person has a right to be secure in their person and no one has a right to violate your body. And not because any super-majority said so.
Incorrect; that Right is also conferred by the super-majority of people. Just ask them.
Whatever Rights you think you have, they are meaningless if they are not honored, protected, and defended by others. They literally have no meaning if there are no consequences for anybody violating them. If they are exercisable (like free speech or liberty) then they literally have no meaning if the majority chooses to punish you for exercising them.
Is that so difficult for you to comprehend? What is the point of calling it a Right if it delivers no privilege and you would be punished for exercising it? In what sense does such a Right have any practical utility whatsoever? Isn’t it just a word game to make you feel better about your subjugation?
Wouldn’t it be like if you believed you had a Right to be free from all taxation? If we don’t agree with you, we tax you anyway, and if we catch you cheating on your taxes we will punish you. So your claimed “Right” is meaningless, it has no practical application whatsoever, and believing you have that Right could land you in trouble.
There are some concepts, like the freedom from violent coercion (for non-criminals) that you posit, that a super majority of people on the planet would probably agree should be granted to all people and defended for all people.
Some concepts of right and wrong, like that one, are self-evident. There is a handful or two of self-evident concepts, in my opinion, that deserve to be Rights, that I think a super-majority of people would agree all people deserve to have protected in return for an obligation to do their fair share of the protecting.
But it comes down to people, nothing else, and what people are willing to do.
Bron says: Your way is a law of men,
Men, women, logic, reason. Damn straight. That is because it isn’t based on some fantasy, it is based on what people actually do and can actually accomplish.
Tony C wrote: “… if we catch you cheating on your taxes we will punish you. So your claimed “Right” is meaningless, it has no practical application whatsoever, and believing you have that Right could land you in trouble.”
Using this logic, the converse would be true also, that if someone cheats on their taxes and gets away with it, then the law is meaningless and only his perceived right not to be required to pay taxes matters.
I actually have known a millionaire that has never filed a tax return. He has never been caught, and he probably never will be caught, considering how long he has been getting away with it.
Wesley Snipes was not so lucky and just got out of prison earlier this year. One big difference between these two is that Snipes attempted to file for millions of dollars of tax refunds in previous years before he came to believe that he did not have to pay taxes. Talk about stupid. 🙂
My reply to Gene H was snagged by WordPress. Could a guest blogger release it please?
Tony C:
I dont need a super-majority to tell me rape is wrong. It is wrong because a person has a right to be secure in their person and no one has a right to violate your body. And not because any super-majority said so.
Quit trying to reason through the collective.
You are barely reasoning above a tribal level, very primitive thought processes.
Skip: there is generally no agreement by the collective.
Bullshit. In every case in which I have claimed there was, I was talking about super-majority agreement. Ask every adult in the country if forcible Rape should be illegal and rapists should be imprisoned, and a super-majority will agree that, yes, it should be illegal, and yes, they should be imprisoned. So many will agree on that, that is becomes extremely improbable that the result would change anytime in the next century.
The super-majority agree on a whole raft of issues.
So social and socialistic have no similarities in the context of economics? So society, community and the term public have no similarities. Does communism have anything to do with ownership by the community or is it just pure coincidence that these terms are Homonyms. Even if it were pure coincidence, it still works out logically. Oh but that is pure childish. What is interesting is that you still don’t appear to get the basic concepts. You are a socialist and display many of the illogical characteristics of one who embraces socialist communist policies.
It just like the idea of collective rights and legally binding contracts. You know I’m a libertarian and therefore believe that yes, we should enter into agreements on elements of natural law that protect basic individual rights but the question that we are debating, is if force is a necessary requirement to do it.
Can’t you read between the lines just a bit so that we don’t have to go into finite detail on each and every thought. I’m the one that feels like I arguing with a child that if they can’t get their way, they attempt anything possible to get there way.
I thought you understood that we are refereeing to socialistic programs that go up and above basic natural rights, like ObamaCare.
Do you even agree that we should at least have unalienable rights and that we should be allowed to voluntarily enter into agreements to protect them or do you just believe in a pure free for all battle with no rights or wrong? You take out of both sides of your mouth like our corrupt politicians do.
hskiprob wrote: “So social and socialistic have no similarities in the context of economics? So society, community and the term public have no similarities. Does communism have anything to do with ownership by the community or is it just pure coincidence that these terms are Homonyms. ”
Skip, I am starting to realize that their responses are just distractions to the issue at hand. They argue about semantics because they don’t deal in actual rational thought about the underlying issues.
Skip wrote: “Can’t you read between the lines just a bit so that we don’t have to go into finite detail on each and every thought. I’m the one that feels like I arguing with a child that if they can’t get their way, they attempt anything possible to get there way.”
Yeah, I feel that too.
Skip wrote: “Do you even agree that we should at least have unalienable rights and that we should be allowed to voluntarily enter into agreements to protect them…”
From what I understand from past conversation, Tony does not believe in any individual rights that are not created through social contract. My concept is that unalienable rights are individual rights that exist regardless of social contract or what any government laws are created.
Gene H.
1, November 23, 2013 at 1:17 pm wrote:
Bron,
Where do you think heath care insurance profits come from?
Hint: It’s not from paying claims i.e. people’s health care.
It’s amazing that you seem to have no grasp on how insurance for profit works let alone grasp that profit taking in that instance is both inefficient and causes actual damage to people.”
____________________________________________________________
Gene H. And without paying premiums, nobody would buy their policies and without profits that would not be able to increase their business.
It’s amazing that you seem to have no grasp on how insurance for profit works let alone grasp that profit taking in that instance is both efficient and helps people control risks.
Skip: Do not conflate “social” with “socialist,” it is an error.
Stop trying to reason by homonym, it is childish.
Gene H:
I am sure cases of that exist. But I have health insurance, car insurance, home insurance, and some other forms of insurance. Not once have I been denied anything that was in my contract. Never.
The health insurance company has taken it up the a$$ from my family and they have paid everything they were legally obligated to pay.
If I had an insurance company, lets see, I would figure out overhead costs, then I would figure out how much I had to pay for claims and then I would figure out the various prices for the different policies based on my anticipated payout for services. Next I would sell a bunch of policies so that I could have enough to invest, pay overhead and pay claims. My profit would come from the money I had invested, from the interest made on the investment. I wouldnt want to touch the principle because I may have a bad year, either financially or in the number of large claims I had.
That is what I would do to make money. Not paying claims would be bad for business and kill my reputation and no one would purchase insurance from me again and I would be out of business.
Did I mention I would want to have a wide variety of people who bought insurance from me? So I could spread the liability. I would want older people who could pay more and younger people who were healthy, a broad mix so that I can cover the claims made.
Bron: Nobody will protect them. The super-majority already says that about certain criminals that have taken lives. However, if the super-majority claims all people have a right to life as long as they haven’t been tried and convicted of treason, murder, or whatever, then targeting a small group is a violation of their agreement. Just as it would be a violation of your principles, and you could do nothing about it and nobody would protect them. It makes no difference if Rights are “based upon” anything if that basis has no protective power, it is just your personal belief in a myth.
In the end, the super-majority has the power, and if they refuse to comply with the Right they agreed all people should have, the individual cannot stand against that, and screaming about your Creator-given Rights won’t stop them, and won’t matter. We live in reality, Bron. At least I do.
You don’t have to buy anything, I was asked for my opinion and gave it.
Bron,
Where do you think heath care insurance profits come from?
Hint: It’s not from paying claims i.e. people’s health care.
It’s amazing that you seem to have no grasp on how insurance for profit works let alone grasp that profit taking in that instance is both inefficient and causes actual damage to people.