Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Then move to a deserted island. That is an utterly impossible ideal in any distinct nation. I can guarantee that if the Republicans ended up in total control, they'd do quite a lot of things that would really restrict your freedom. Any political party would.
Besides, you're forgetting that true freedom includes the freedom to die. A lot of people really don't want that to be a viable option.
edited 20th Aug '13 10:35:41 AM by Zendervai
Speaking of... US Senate just passed a bill that would ban certain types of body art and piercings
. It's going to the House now.
The trouble is, and the trouble with the Paulist Liberatrian analysis, is that freedom is not necessarily an exclusive preserve of politics. Economic circumstances are far greater destroyers of liberty that most governments. If you want to go where you wish and do what you want, then the solution is to work hard so that you can. That's the Achaemenid plank, at least. But there needs to be work, people need access to the education and skills that can grant them the ability to work, and they definitely need access, unfettered and free at the point of use, to the care that can keep them in health. By your definition, Soban, how free is a single mother on welfare trying to support a child? Can she really do what she wants and go where she wishes?
That's mind-bendingly idiotic, and hopefully unconstitutional. Seems something that should be left to the states, at the very least. Interestingly, the "nay"s were all Repubs.
EDIT: Because the article is stupid as hell - a "Senator from Mountain View" in the US Senate getting something passed with a 26-4 vote? It's just Arkansas.
edited 20th Aug '13 10:43:06 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiSoban: The logical extension of "Freedom>Everything Else" is that there should be no laws.
Having law enforcement reduces your freedom and the number of choices you can make, too. The idea of regulations on health insurers is no different than regulations on people against drunk driving.
edited 20th Aug '13 10:50:29 AM by RTaco
It'll probably be stopped in the Arkansas Senate. Probably.
Maine Governor Paul LePage: Obama 'hates white people'
edited 20th Aug '13 10:53:38 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Would Obamacare illegalize medical insurance, or just add a bottom line for people who have none?
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Last I checked, the second one.
Okay, follow up question.
If you are still able to pay for an insurance company of your choice instead of using the Obamacare, how has your freedom of choice been restricted in any way?
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
I have no idea. I can't follow their Insane Troll Logic well enough, but it has something to do with taxes.
In the end, it comes back to that fundamental philosophical divide between freedom-from versus freedom-to, or individualism versus collectivism, or negative liberties versus positive liberties.
The maximum individualist position is an interesting theoretical exercise but it is completely impractical in a complex and technological society. Taken to the ultimate extreme, it means living in the wilderness, wearing animal scraps, and scavenging berries to supplement what you can kill with your bare hands.
The reason it falls apart is that it imposes an arbitrary distinction between rules that are a condition of one's existence and rules that are imposed by an authority. For example, the need to eat is taken as natural and proper whereas being told not to prepare food that's poisonous to other people is taken as an imposition.
edited 20th Aug '13 11:10:20 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Though a bunch of companies are dropping their highest tier "Cadillac" plans, but a quick glimpse seems to indicate such plans might be half responsible for our soaring premiums?
edited 20th Aug '13 11:13:29 AM by PotatoesRock
@soban: Deciding the combination of things that we are willing to pay for as a society versus what we require individuals to pay for on their own is the purpose of having a legislature. You may declare an arbitrary line in the sand, but that doesn't mean others agree with you, and the result is a course of action that is agreed upon by the majority of Congresspersons. That's how government works.
What's going on now is that one side of that debate lost and is now attempting to sabotage all operations of government until they get their way.
edited 20th Aug '13 11:16:10 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"In every country where the option was raised, people chose the taxes. Except the United States, of course.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighteer, lets be honest here. Everyone knows that what we have is a law that had to be passed without modification in the 11th hour. There were and are a lot of strong feelings about this law and if we should have it. Thanks to the fact of how it was passed, lost might not be the best word for it. A lot of people feel that it was passed without going through the proper channels.
@R Taco They get a vote too. Just don't expect me to use my vote to vote to pay for something I don't want to pay for.

And I'm concerned about things getting done. We've run with FREEDOM of the Insurance Markets for years. Their freedom has done dick all and premiums are inflating.
Freedom might work in some areas, but it doesn't work on every area.
I'm more concerned about fulfilling Malow's hierarchy of needs at relative quality over relative freedom. I prioritize the ability to not starve and die and get actual healthcare over freedom to choose a brand of insurer.
Then again, I've been forced to deal with extremely rough Real Life circumstances for the last few years, those tend to prioritize safety over freedom.