Voting against your interests or Now I Need Obamacare

spontaneous said:

Not my father, my father in law. And he didn't say that the law didn't go far enough to protect him, he said the law forced his company to drop his coverage. He was adamant that he lost his coverage BECAUSE of Obamacare. He truly believed that had it not gone into effect that his employer would have happily kept covering him full time even though he was only working six months a year.

OK, that's ignorant, and it's ignorant to a damaging degree.

Did I miss the part where someone here was advocating actual communism?

tom said:

Did I miss the part where someone here was advocating actual communism?

It's the whole slippery slope concern. One day you have proper universal healthcare - the next, you have a totalitarian communist government.

Tom_Reingold said:

OK, that's ignorant, and it's ignorant to a damaging degree.

Describes my FIL perfectly. He also believed that Obama was coming for his guns. And I once mentioned buying a new water heater and he started ranting and raving that Obama was destroying the country because new water heaters come with piezoelectric starters instead of pilot lights.

Basically, some people are beyond reason, their ignorance and hate make them unable to even listen to a different opinion, let alone even considering changing their point of view on something. In fact, were someone to hear a reasoned argument on a subject, consider the points, and then say "you know what, you've got a good point there, I actually agree with that after all" they'd be accused of "flip flopping."

@sprout and (in some concurrent threads) @angelak: FWIW, your latest series of insightful and inquisitive posts have been much appreciated by this picky reader.

as long as people and groups of people have to share the same land, water and atmosphere, there is going to be a need for regulation of resources. If not for laws and regulations, what's to stop the utopian group upstream from dumping their waste and sewage into the river that flows to the utopian group downstream?

You are aware that DeVos was holding firm on Title IX protection for Transgender people. She was given the choice of resigning or going along and she chose to go along, but she did put up a fight.

yahooyahoo said:

Good think DeVos will fix those schools and bring back religion to the classroom.

terp said:

Ha! They're stupid! I fear the public schools have failed them.

Or DeVos could have fought. Perhaps she would have been fired, but she doesn't really need the money.

Perhaps she's stayed to fight another day.

I honestly do not know enough about that specific situation to comment. In principle, I think that you have a good point. You cannot pollute water without infringing on someone else's rights. Thus, some arrangement needs to be worked out.

tjohn said:

So there you have it. You and I can probably agree on what instances of too much regulation and on instances of insufficient regulation. It's the area in between these extremes combined with the rather difficult task of developing regulations for a nation of 300 millions that are workable.

For example, there are regulations in place for the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay which require management of agricultural runoff into the Susquehanna River. Unavoidably, these regulations are pretty burdensome on farmers, but what is the alternative short of letting the Chesapeake Bay die?

terp said:

Here's the thing tjohn. We have a very complex set of rules. I think we could simplify things just a bit. Let's say you had a legal framework at the national level that protects everyone's liberty. Basically, you are free to worship, associate, say, do what you'd like up to the point where you start infringing on the rights of others.

At more local levels, you can apply other laws. Sprout seems concerned about noise ordinances. I don't know. My neighbors are pretty considerate. I'm not sure they don't bother me because they fear they are going to be penalized under some noise ordinance. So, for someone like me, I might choose to live somewhere that doesn't stress that. However, if I were, perhaps there were other localities that had such ordinances and they were strictly enforced.

I just don't think it is wise to try to centrally govern a populace as large and diverse as in the US. And from where I sit, I think we have too many rules and the federal government is too involved in our lives.

Let's say there is a bus line that goes in 2 directions. I could get on 1 that travels in the direction of more federal rules. Let's say there is another that goes in the direction of less federal rules. I'm going to get on the latter bus. I think I probably get off the bus before it reaches the end of the line. I'm not sure exactly how long I take that ride. But I know that is the direction I'd like to go in.

I hope that makes sense.

tjohn said:

terp said:

I'm sorry that you don't understand what a free society is. It does not mean "no rules". I've explained this to you dozens of times, yet you always seem to take it to absurd levels.

What rules do you have then? And I mean aside from the easy ones like laws against murder and stealing. It seems to me that most of our governmental regulations came about in response to real problems that were hurting people - environmental regulations, labor practice regulation, etc.

I doubt they would have fired her. She will never have as much leverage over them as she has right now. They used up a bit of political capital to get unpopular nomination through. How would it have looked to fire her a couple of weeks later?

If we assume that the link Terp posted was correct, then it seems like she stayed to fight another day.

Cristabel said:

Or DeVos could have fought. Perhaps she would have been fired, but she doesn't really need the money.

Perhaps she's stayed to fight another day.

Sorry if I misquoted you. I don't think liberty is there to please everyone. It's basically allowing people to find their own path to happiness or self realization or what have you. It's about finding your own path.

I just don't think one size fits all. Do you go to restaurants w/ one choice for a meal? Would you want the 1 restaurant in the town that served one meal? Of course not. Different people like different things.

Bernie Sanders couldn't understand why there were so many brands of deodorant. The reason that there are is because people have their preferences. Some people may pay more for a better product w/ better ingredients or because it lacks some undesirable ingredients. Others mostly want a cheaper product. There are a myriad of reasons people make buying decisions. This is freedom.

I'm guessing the world was different in your youth more than it was the Bronx. My parents let me do things when I was a kid, that I would risk getting a call from Social Services today.

As for why a libertarian ended up in Maplewood. We drew a circle around NYC and wanted a good commute. Maplewood is an aesthetically pleasing (IMO) town with a good housing stock. The people are active and friendly. Again, this is a very personal choice. As always, you have to take the good w/ the bad.

sprout said:

terp said:

At more local levels, you can apply other laws. Sprout seems concerned about noise ordinances. I don't know. My neighbors are pretty considerate. I'm not sure they don't bother me because they fear they are going to be penalized under some noise ordinance. So, for someone like me, I might choose to live somewhere that doesn't stress that. However, if I were, perhaps there were other localities that had such ordinances and they were strictly enforced.

I just don't think it is wise to try to centrally govern a populace as large and diverse as in the US. And from where I sit, I think we have too many rules and the federal government is too involved in our lives.

Um -- that had nothing to do with noise ordinances. Sprout was trying to provide an example of how a society that was not exhibiting any problems enjoying their freedoms can result in higher level of chaos than some enjoy. The example was demonstrating the fallacy of saying: "but you're free to make rules that reduce the chaos... but you can't force them on others". This is not really more "freedom". The level of decision-making about life's different constraints is shifted, and while you think that greater variations would make more people pleased, the resulting chaos from the greater variations would actually result in many people not being pleased.

In other words, Libertarianism also doesn't please everyone.

I'm going to try another example: My youth in the Bronx in the 1970's was much more libertarian than in current Maplewood. Maplewood has rules about everything: fences, leaf blowers, recycling.... and crazy high property taxation. Why would a libertarian even consider living here?

Now the Bronx.... we had free markets abounding for so many things, and they were run tax-free. There were contracts between parties to keep these free markets from interfering with each other. Those who worked in the free markets didn't pay income tax, social security, but also had no work hazard protections (no workman's comp, unemployment, leave pay, vacation time, insurance, etc). Property tax was barely noticeable, and one could pretty much do as they wished with their property, as well as within it. Most laws that were annoying to libertarians were not enforced, as priorities for enforcement were elsewhere.

I'm guessing present-day Newark is similar, and could be much closer to a libertarian's paradise than SOMA.

one strange part of that story is the assertion that "the left" didn't oppose Jeff Sessions' nomination.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/more-than-1100-law-school-professors-nationwide-oppose-sessionss-nomination-as-attorney-general/2017/01/03/dbf55750-d1cc-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html?utm_term=.7353ac4a63d7

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-sessions-justice-20170131-story.html

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/12/headlines/attorney_general_nominee_jeff_sessions_opposed_by_senate_colleague

https://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/letters/send-a-letter-to-us-senators-block-jeff-sessions-from-becoming-the-next-attorney-general

tjohn said:

If we assume that the link Terp posted was correct, then it seems like she stayed to fight another day.

Cristabel said:

Or DeVos could have fought. Perhaps she would have been fired, but she doesn't really need the money.

Perhaps she's stayed to fight another day.

Where in the article did they make the assertion that the Left didn't oppose Session's nomination?

The left’s comparative silence on Sessions’ confirmation compared to the apocalyptic prophecies of gloom and doom surrounding DeVos highlights the misplaced policy priorities surrounding the opposition movements to Trump’s Cabinet picks.

terp said:

As for why a libertarian ended up in Maplewood. We drew a circle around NYC and wanted a good commute. Maplewood is an aesthetically pleasing (IMO) town with a good housing stock. The people are active and friendly. Again, this is a very personal choice. As always, you have to take the good w/ the bad.

But it demonstrates the weakness of the response that in a libertarian society, one would be 'free' to make their own society within it. If you chose Newark, you would live with many fewer population-controlling laws and less taxes going to the nanny-state. Newark has some incredible housing, with much lower taxes. And the commute to NYC is even shorter.

You appear to have such a strong focus on libertarianism, yet you chose SOMA, possibly one of the most nanny-townships in the area. So it seems strange to tell others that if one doesn't like the society that develops under more libertarian doctrine, that one could just find or make a bubble they liked, and live within it. As your own choice demonstrates, that solution is not always so simple.

obviously you didnt understand the context of the Sanders CNBC quote, and misconstrued it as did most conservative voices because they cant or wont deal with the underlying truth.

HARWOOD: If the changes that you envision in tax policy, in finance, breaking up the banks, were to result in a more equitable distribution of income, but less economic growth, is that trade-off worth making?

SANDERS: Yes. If 99 percent of all the new income goes to the top 1 percent, you could triple it, it wouldn't matter much to the average middle class person. The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn't matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty. You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on. People scared to death about what happens tomorrow. Half the people in America have less than 10,000 in savings. How do you like that? That means you have an automobile accident, you have an illness, you're broke. How do you retire if you have less than 10,000, and you don't have much in the way of Social Security?

The question he responded to was related to distribution of income. Nothing to do with the "freedom" to buy 23 different deodorants and everything to do with serving the people of the country, bringing the people out of poverty by reducing the profits of the few for the betterment of the many.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/26/10-questions-with-bernie-sanders.html

Thanks for posting that. Man,Bernie's economic ignorance is astounding.

My point was that you can have stricter rule under a free umbrella. But you cannot have freer rule under a strict umbrella. It's not that hard to understand.

For instance, no matter where I live my phone calls are being recorded. No matter what town I live in I work for the government through May. No matter what town I live in I can be put in jail without a trial indefinitely. No matter what town I live in I have to report personal financial data annually under the penalty of law w/ the burden of proof on me. etc.

Perhaps I lack perspective, but in comparison, the tyranny of living in our little berg doesn't seem so bad.

sprout said:

terp said:

As for why a libertarian ended up in Maplewood. We drew a circle around NYC and wanted a good commute. Maplewood is an aesthetically pleasing (IMO) town with a good housing stock. The people are active and friendly. Again, this is a very personal choice. As always, you have to take the good w/ the bad.

But it demonstrates the weakness of the response that in a libertarian society, one would be 'free' to make their own society within it. If you chose Newark, you would live with many fewer population-controlling laws and less taxes going to the nanny-state. Newark has some incredible housing, with much lower taxes. And the commute to NYC is even shorter.

You appear to have such a strong focus on libertarianism, yet you chose SOMA, possibly one of the most nanny-townships in the area. So it seems strange to tell others that if one doesn't like the society that develops under more libertarian doctrine, that one could just find or make a bubble they liked, and live within it. As your own choice demonstrates, that solution is not always so simple.

terp said:

Thanks for posting that. Man,Bernie's economic ignorance is astounding.

and you got that from the interview? astounding

terp said:

My point was that you can have stricter rule under a free umbrella. But you cannot have freer rule under a strict umbrella. It's not that hard to understand.

Because what you don't understand is that one cannot live in a more standardized, predictable, and protective world within a chaotic system.

There is more than just one dimension to society.

ml1 said:

The left’s comparative silence on Sessions’ confirmation compared to the apocalyptic prophecies of gloom and doom surrounding DeVos highlights the misplaced policy priorities surrounding the opposition movements to Trump’s Cabinet picks.

"the left" was not "comparatively" silent about Jeff Sessions. You could have written that about Tillerson, Carson, and several others but not Sessions.

in the Senate the opposition to DeVos and Sessions was similar, except in the case of Sessions, Cory Booker actually testified against his nomination. Not quite sure why it matters to the author of that piece. But what he wrote is not accurate at all.

Senate Democrats stayed-up for a second consecutive late-night session Tuesday to highlight their opposition to another one of President Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees. And this time the target is one of their own colleagues, attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions.
Democrats spoke on the Senate floor late into the night, one day after they staged an all-night talkathon against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos — a tactic that failed to derail her nomination but succeeded in highlighting the divisiveness of her appointment and slowing the overall confirmation process.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-democrats-plan-late-night-oppose-ag-nominee-sessions-n718066

ml1 said:

"the left" was not "comparatively" silent about Jeff Sessions. You could have written that about Tillerson, Carson, and several others but not Sessions.

If we’re making sweeping generalizations, “The Left” did fight the Sessions nomination, but there was a key difference between his confirmation effort and that of DeVos. While The Left considered the beliefs and goals of both nominees to be odious, Sessions’ resume has the qualifications that you would want in an AG (U.S. Attorney, State Attorney General, Senate Judiciary Committee). DeVos was much easier to go after because she combined unpalatable beliefs with an appalling lack of relevant experience.

the opposition to DeVos was able to convince a couple of Republicans to join them. But it's just not a truthful way of describing the Sessions opposition as "comparative silence." It would be more accurate and truthful to say the opposition to DeVos was even louder than the opposition to Sessions. If not for DeVos, the opposition to Sessions would have been considered very forceful, particularly because he was a member of the Senate club. And senators typically give great deference to each other.

Stoughton said:

ml1 said:

"the left" was not "comparatively" silent about Jeff Sessions. You could have written that about Tillerson, Carson, and several others but not Sessions.

If we’re making sweeping generalizations, “The Left” did fight the Sessions nomination, but there was a key difference between his confirmation effort and that of DeVos. While The Left considered the beliefs and goals of both nominees to be odious, Sessions’ resume has the qualifications that you would want in an AG (U.S. Attorney, State Attorney General, Senate Judiciary Committee). DeVos was much easier to go after because she combined unpalatable beliefs with an appalling lack of relevant experience.

terp said:

I honestly do not know enough about that specific situation to comment. In principle, I think that you have a good point. You cannot pollute water without infringing on someone else's rights. Thus, some arrangement needs to be worked out.

And "arrangements" are meaningless if there is no enforcement. Note that that word contains the word "force."

From Robert Reich's book Saving Capitalism, there are five building blocks:

• Property
• Monopoly
• Contract
• Bankruptcy
• Enforcement

Laws concerning these things must exist, and an economy cannot exist without such laws.

terp said:

You are aware that DeVos was holding firm on Title IX protection for Transgender people. She was given the choice of resigning or going along and she chose to go along, but she did put up a fight.

I read that in the New York Times this morning and my reaction was to be skeptical of the story. It might just be spin put out by DeVos or the White House.

Trump would probably call it "fake news".

terp said:



Let's say there is a bus line that goes in 2 directions. I could get on 1 that travels in the direction of more federal rules. Let's say there is another that goes in the direction of less federal rules. I'm going to get on the latter bus. I think I probably get off the bus before it reaches the end of the line. I'm not sure exactly how long I take that ride. But I know that is the direction I'd like to go in.

First you must navigate the rules of the bus. Is there a fee to be paid? Is it a flat fee or does it depend on how far you are traveling? Can you sit where you want or are seats assigned? Does where you are permitted to sit depend on your race? Must the drier follow a specific route or is he or she free to get to follow any route as long as it gets the bus to the intended destination.?

We also must consider all the traffic rules that the bus driver may be bound by.

terp said:

Please provide an example of a communist country that didn't require massive amounts of coercion.

I'd like an example of any country, that is, any nation-state that didn't require massive amounts of coercion.