I'm not an atheist, so this doesn't really apply to me. I think you lot should probably get a look at this:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/12/28/maybe-this-will-finally-drive-the-libertarians-out-of-atheism/
"There's no profit in atheism!"? I don't know. Dawkins seems to have made a living off of his atheist screed "The God Delusion" and that goes for every New Atheist author and YT atheist. Heck, I'm sure PZ Myers here makes a very comfortable living off of the ad revenue from having one of the most popular atheist blogs.
Quote from: BlameThe1st on December 29, 2013, 05:13:12 PM
I'm not an atheist, so this doesn't really apply to me. I think you lot should probably get a look at this:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/12/28/maybe-this-will-finally-drive-the-libertarians-out-of-atheism/
"There's no profit in atheism!"? I don't know. Dawkins seems to have made a living off of his atheist screed "The God Delusion" and that goes for every New Atheist author and YT atheist. Heck, I'm sure PZ Myers here makes a very comfortable living off of the ad revenue from having one of the most popular atheist blogs.
There's no inherent profit in libertarianism either.
Quote from: BlameThe1st on December 29, 2013, 05:13:12 PM
I'm not an atheist, so this doesn't really apply to me. I think you lot should probably get a look at this:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/12/28/maybe-this-will-finally-drive-the-libertarians-out-of-atheism/
"There’s no profit in atheism!"? I don't know. Dawkins seems to have made a living off of his atheist screed "The God Delusion" and that goes for every New Atheist author and YT atheist. Heck, I'm sure PZ Myers here makes a very comfortable living off of the ad revenue from having one of the most popular atheist blogs.
I haven't read "The God Delusion" (I'd like to get it someday though), but I don't get people calling it a screed. If the bits Shane quoted in his videos are any indicator, Dawkins is actually rather civil in it.
Also, >>Freethoughtblogs
Oh gods. I remember these hacks. Someone left a comment on Shane's first "Atheism & Libertarianism" video claiming they made parallels with the free market to that of theism (CUZ DEY WORSHIP DUH FREE MARKET!!!!1111?) And yeah, they do know that libertarianism; or free markets for that matter aren't just about profits, right? Or for that matter, that profits are just maximizing your own happiness? I need to find that win quote made by Hawkeye on the subject...
Quote from: BlameThe1st on December 29, 2013, 05:13:12 PM
I'm not an atheist, so this doesn't really apply to me. I think you lot should probably get a look at this:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/12/28/maybe-this-will-finally-drive-the-libertarians-out-of-atheism/
All you need to see the fail is "Free Thought Blogs."
Funny that they make that ridiculous claim about profit, since pretty much every atheist ever has made the argument that they don't have to incur monetary expenses such as tithing and time expenses like praying or going to church, etc.
Quote from: BlameThe1st on December 29, 2013, 05:13:12 PM
I'm not an atheist, so this doesn't really apply to me. I think you lot should probably get a look at this:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/12/28/maybe-this-will-finally-drive-the-libertarians-out-of-atheism/
By the way, it seems I'm still blocked, so could someone else post this to the comments for me and let us know the reaction?
[yt]anP42zvPPRQ[/yt]
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 29, 2013, 06:11:46 PM
By the way, it seems I'm still blocked, so could someone else post this to the comments for me and let us know the reaction?
[yt]anP42zvPPRQ[/yt]
I'm registering there as I type. :3
I'm also going to include that quote Hawkeye made of it being hypocritical to speak of profit as if it's a dirty word.
Quote from: T dog on December 29, 2013, 06:33:19 PM
I'm registering there as I type. :3
I'm also going to include that quote Hawkeye made of it being hypocritical to speak of profit as if it's a dirty word.
Fail of a response: "It can and is a dirty word. Health care costs would go down, and coverage up, for the same monies without PROFIT. Government coverage at cost. Think about that before you show your ignorance...."
Answer: We already have!
[yt]7DhJ73JuWJY[/yt]
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 29, 2013, 06:49:44 PM
Fail of a response: "It can and is a dirty word. Health care costs would go down, and coverage up, for the same monies without PROFIT. Government coverage at cost. Think about that before you show your ignorance…."
Answer: We already have!
[yt]7DhJ73JuWJY[/yt]
The guy who keeps responding is freakin' hilarious. He calls what I posted by Roderick T Long "from propaganda sites" (despite him citing his sources) and to use Google Scholar. He says libertarianism is "just fuck you, I've got mine" along with what you pointed out.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 29, 2013, 06:49:44 PM
Fail of a response: "It can and is a dirty word. Health care costs would go down, and coverage up, for the same monies without PROFIT. Government coverage at cost. Think about that before you show your ignorance...."
Answer: We already have!
[yt]7DhJ73JuWJY[/yt]
The real fail here is his atrocious grammar.
Quote from: T dog on December 29, 2013, 06:33:19 PM
I'm registering there as I type. :3
I'm also going to include that quote Hawkeye made of it being hypocritical to speak of profit as if it's a dirty word.
Aww, he wants us to use Google Scholar.
Okay: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=unemployment+%22minimum+wage%22+author:%22david+neumark%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 29, 2013, 07:06:24 PM
Aww, he wants us to use Google Scholar.
Okay: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=unemployment+%22minimum+wage%22+author:%22david+neumark%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
Posted. :3
You're following this too, I see. Though I assume he was referring to posting a source from Google Scholar instead of the bit from Roderick T Long (why? He cites his sources).
Split to a new topic.
Notice the burden-shifting: "And you are wrong until you show you are right with evidence."
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 29, 2013, 07:19:42 PM
Split to a new topic.
Notice the burden-shifting: "And you are wrong until you show you are right with evidence."
Yeah. My personal fav was when he said that videos aren't evidence...in a blog entry where the body IS a video.
That or when he posts an article saying that "this is why we need Canada's healthcare system to get profit out of the system and to reduce administrative costs."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1093/ei/40.3.315/abstract;jsessionid=C9F9381066416A77D4293EE06A8C86FB.f01t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
Abstract:"We present evidence on the effects of minimum wages on family incomes. The results indicate that minimum wages increase both the probability that poor families escape poverty and the probability that previously nonpoor families fall into poverty. The estimated increase in the flow into poverty is larger, although this difference is not statistically significant. We also find that minimum wages tend to boost the incomes of poor families that remain below the poverty line. On net, the various trade-offs created by minimum wage increases more closely resemble income redistribution among low-income families than income redistribution from high- to low-income families."
So it's actually a redistribution scheme.
Quote from: T dog on December 29, 2013, 07:24:54 PM
Yeah. My personal fav was when he said that videos aren't evidence...in a blog entry where the body IS a video.
Tell him that videos aren't evidence, either are white papers, lectures, magazine articles, nursery rhymes, radio talk shows, blog posts, or studies by ivy league universities. Each of these things is a medium of communication, the evidence is the content conveyed by the medium, not the medium itself. Also, his name kinda tells you he's there to jerk people's chain.
Quote from: moronWhite papers by people other than liberturds or full RW economists can be evidence. You must understand the difference between propaganda by TRUE BELIEVERS™, and real evidence by skeptics...
Yes, they
can be, but it's the content of those documents that make them evidence, not the fact they are documents.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 29, 2013, 07:19:42 PM
Split to a new topic.
Notice the burden-shifting: "And you are wrong until you show you are right with evidence."
Wait a minute, don't theists do the exact same thing?
Personally, I don't understand why atheists are able to use logic and reason to discover that god does not exist, yet they don't apply logic and reason to government.
Quote from: BreadGod on December 29, 2013, 07:53:00 PM
Wait a minute, don't theists do the exact same thing?
Personally, I don't understand why atheists are able to use logic and reason to discover that god does not exist, yet they don't apply logic and reason to government.
You and me both. >_<
Quote from: dallen68 on December 29, 2013, 07:49:28 PM
Yes, they can be, but it's the content of those documents that make them evidence, not the fact they are documents.
Mhm. The OP is full on special pleading at this point.
I think I'm going to call it--responding to these state cultists--a night for now.
If anyone else wants to join in, feel free. :P
Okay, against my better judgement, I decided to see if there was something there from someone here, and found/noticed a few things.
It turned into a discussion of "HUR DUR UHC!" thus completely evading the video by Shane I posted. And not one of them has even tried to address the points in either the videos or sources. One of which was that big article of how govco 'solved' the first healthcare crisis by killing mutual aid and fraternal societies. Of course they just blow it off as "propaganda".
And one responds to me saying that "I'm against both Socialized Medicine and the USA's current system" by telling me to know my audience and that he's for socialized medicine. Funny, I was about to tell him the same thing--know your audience. I'm not for the USA's system so anything these gullible infants can share that bashes it is 100% irrelevant to me.
One really bitchy one asks if I have ways of getting the ideas across besides youtube.
So I call him out on giving the blog author a free pass (the entry is just a video) and say that the videos I linked to have transcripts if he'd like that instead.
His response? He calls me a mean name and says he doesn't like me. Yeah, cry a river and drown in it dbag.
With another responding to me saying that I'm an anarcho capitalist with, "HUR! Robber barons must treat you well!"
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 29, 2013, 06:11:46 PM
By the way, it seems I'm still blocked, so could someone else post this to the comments for me and let us know the reaction?
[yt]anP42zvPPRQ[/yt]
So in conclusion, I showed them your video, Shane, and they don't even address a word of it, by blowing it off as "opinions and propaganda". While unironically flinging their own opinions and propaganda at me. Pathetic state cultists the lot of them. Figures they wouldn't even look at it, but then, given this place's track record, should we really be surprised?
Quote from: T dog on December 29, 2013, 09:48:45 PM
Okay, against my better judgement, I decided to see if there was something there from someone here, and found/noticed a few things.
It turned into a discussion of "HUR DUR UHC!" thus completely evading the video by Shane I posted. And not one of them has even tried to address the points in either the videos or sources. One of which was that big of how govco 'solved' the first healthcare crisis by killing mutual aid and fraternal societies. Of course they just blow it of as "propaganda".
And one responds to me saying that "I'm against both Socialized Medicine and the USA's current system" by telling me to know my audience and that he's for socialized medicine. Funny, I was about to tell him the same thing--know your audience. I'm not for the USA's system so anything these gullible infants can share that bashes it is 100% irrelevant to me.
One really bitchy one asks if I have ways of getting the ideas across besides youtube.
So I call him out on giving the blog author a free pass (the entry is just a video) and say that the videos I linked to have transcripts if he'd like that instead.
His response? He calls me a mean name and says he doesn't like me. Yeah, cry a river and drown in it dbag.
With another responding to me saying that I'm an anarcho capitalist with, "HUR! Robber barons must treat you well!"
So in conclusion, I showed them your video, Shane, and they don't even address a word of it, by blowing it off as "opinions and propaganda". While unironically flinging their own opinions and propaganda at me. Pathetic state cultists the lot of them. Figures they wouldn't even look at it, but then, given this place's track record, should we really be surprised?
Wow, I thought creationist were bad.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 29, 2013, 10:05:53 PM
Wow, I thought creationist were bad.
This is Freethought Blogs we're talking about. Don't expect any sort of rational discourse.
Quote from: BreadGod on December 29, 2013, 11:15:49 PM
This is Freethought Blogs we're talking about. Don't expect any sort of rational discourse.
Well, I never visited the site before, kind of regretting it now.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 30, 2013, 01:10:02 AM
Well, I never visited the site before, kind of regretting it now.
I used to read it occasionally, but I lost interest in it a few years ago because it stopped being about science, and rationalism, and atheism and started to be more about ... well, actually most of it turned into a bunch of people having a whine fest. In any event, it got to the point that someone actually saying something worth reading was so rare as to be inconsequential.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 29, 2013, 10:05:53 PM
Wow, I thought creationist were bad.
Mhm. It's like I've always told Shane--state cultists are indeed worse than creationists.
And yeah, "propaganda" isn't some magical "IWIN" button. It also doesn't mean what they think it means. Last I checked, it means something laced with emotional appeals and if they actually bothered to read my posts, not only did I not provide a single emotional appeal, I would bet that they did that quite posted quite a few of those themselves.
dictionary.com people. It's mere keystrokes away. No excuses for not knowing how to use your terms properly.
Quote from: BreadGod on December 29, 2013, 07:53:00 PM
Wait a minute, don't theists do the exact same thing?
Yes, that's the whole point of A&L Part 1.
QuotePersonally, I don't understand why atheists are able to use logic and reason to discover that god does not exist, yet they don't apply logic and reason to government.
I've been wondering that for well over a decade.
Quote from: BreadGod on December 29, 2013, 11:15:49 PM
This is Freethought Blogs we're talking about. Don't expect any sort of rational discourse.
Ironic that I use a FTB post in one of the parts as an example of how many statheists are just like creationists...
Quote from: T dog on December 29, 2013, 09:48:45 PMSo I call him out on giving the blog author a free pass (the entry is just a video) and say that the videos I linked to have transcripts if he'd like that instead.
Just so everyone knows, this is a good resource for them:
http://www.transcriptsearch.com.es/id/anP42zvPPRQ
I haven't checked, but I surmise they have transcripts for all YouTube videos that have captions.
Man, someone even brought up Jakob Fugger. Yeah, cos if I'm examining free market economies, Germany circa 1500 is TOTALLY the first place I look...
Mercantilist/corporatist societies like 16th-century Germany get monopolies. In a free market, monopolies keep running into people like Herbert Dow.
>there's no profit in atheism
So I guess they're giving away their merchandise in the shop for free then?
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Quote from: D on December 30, 2013, 09:12:25 AM
>there's no profit in atheism
So I guess they're giving away their merchandise in the shop for free then?
What a bunch of hypocrites.
They even have a shop with merchandise? I honestly didn't know that. And yeah, blood-sucking hypocrites the whole lot of them.
Quote from: dallen68 on December 29, 2013, 07:49:28 PM
Yes, they can be, but it's the content of those documents that make them evidence, not the fact they are documents.
Or who they are made by. Basically he's just saying that "white papers are evidence, unless they're one of yours" pathetic. Two can play that game: since academia gets money from govco, it is therefore biased against a free market, and is therefore propaganda and doesn't count. Love showing his emperor of an argument for the naked and ugly thing that it is. X3
Quote from: T dog on December 30, 2013, 09:38:20 AM
Or who they are made by. Basically he's just saying that "white papers are evidence, unless they're one of yours" pathetic. Two can play that game: since academia gets money from govco, it is therefore biased against a free market, and is therefore propaganda and doesn't count. Love showing his emperor of an argument for the naked and ugly thing that it is. X3
Yeah, no matter how the evidence is presented, at some point you're going to have to evaluate that evidence. That judgement is going to come down to how credible you think that evidence is, which is
always eventually going to come down to your opinion, which is hopefully based on prior knowledge, a familiarity with the source, etc. Part of the evaluation may very well be the medium or the source - but those things, in and of themselves, do not make it (good or bad) evidence. Come to think of it, the argument shouldn't even be: "Is this (whatever the argument happens to be) evidence?" (because it most certainly is) but "Is this good evidence?"
Quote from: Rob GrigjanisSallyStrange @64:
QuoteI'm not only for socialized medicine, but also for a guaranteed minimum income for all.
Yes! And gosh, there's even evidence that, contrary to knee-jerk conservative bleating, people wouldn't spend all their time drinking beer and watching telly.
Wow, do they REALLY think that's our problem with that?
Also, notice that the "evidence" that he cites is an experiment that the participants KNEW to be temporary.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 30, 2013, 04:31:03 PM
Yes! And gosh, there's even evidence that, contrary to knee-jerk conservative bleating, people wouldn't spend all their time drinking beer and watching telly.
Wow, do they REALLY think that's our problem with that?
Also, notice that the "evidence" that he cites is an experiment that the participants KNEW to be temporary.
For some conservatives, that *is* the problem with that. They're not talking about libertarians here, where the problem is being forced to give the gift. They're talking about conservatives, who want to make sure that the recipients use the gift in a manner... Well, they want to control what people can and cannot buy.
Looks like we made Mr. PZ extremely butthurt: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/12/31/so-i-invented-a-new-law-the-other-day/
My "favorite" part has to be when he claimed that America is already a "libertarian paradise"!
[yt]_n5E7feJHw0[/yt]
One comment summarizes the absurdity of that sentiment exactly:
Quote"The US is already a libertarian paradise"
*Bailouts
*FDIC
*Drug War
*Social Security
*Payroll Tax
*Medicare
*Medicaid
*Fiat money
*NASA
*NSA
*Afghanistan War
<sarcasm>How libertarian!</sarcasm>
Quote from: BlameThe1st on December 31, 2013, 02:18:22 PM
Looks like we made Mr. PZ extremely butthurt: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/12/31/so-i-invented-a-new-law-the-other-day/
My "favorite" part has to be when he claimed that America is already a "libertarian paradise"!
[yt]_n5E7feJHw0[/yt]
One comment summarizes the absurdity of that sentiment exactly:
Did anyone else from this forum comment on the journal regarding libertarians and profit you first shared with us?
I would have posted more, but I honestly had my fill of that place.
And yeah, he *does* know that we've had all 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto enacted in the USA to varying degrees right? And according to Shane, all 28 Planks of the old U.S. Socialist Party. Hardly Libertarian (or free market). Well, unless he's one of those woos who thinks that "libertarianism really means socialism/communism, but you Americans stole it from us!" (a claim, which, even if it is true--online etymology dictionary is your friend, people!--would still be an appeal to etymology)
Quote from: BlameThe1st on December 31, 2013, 02:18:22 PM
Looks like we made Mr. PZ extremely butthurt: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/12/31/so-i-invented-a-new-law-the-other-day/
And fail like this: "The other thing these libertarians did, so predictably and at least a little more productively, is try to tout the virtues of their political philosophy. "Freedom, no initiation of force, no corporate welfare, no censorship, no drug war, peace...no initiation of force, individual liberty, live and let live, no corporate welfare, no drug war, etc." Yes? So? Those are things progressive liberals are all for, too, and we do it without the destructive baggage of unfettered capitalism, which they all neatly leave off their laundry list." Um, "unfettered capitalism" IS the non-initiation of force and live and let live! The only way to fetter capitalism is to USE force!
I would post that, if I weren't BLOCKED...
QuoteThe US is already a libertarian paradise
And then he says we "cheer it on." WHAT???
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 31, 2013, 02:42:21 PM
And fail like this: "The other thing these libertarians did, so predictably and at least a little more productively, is try to tout the virtues of their political philosophy. "Freedom, no initiation of force, no corporate welfare, no censorship, no drug war, peace...no initiation of force, individual liberty, live and let live, no corporate welfare, no drug war, etc." Yes? So? Those are things progressive liberals are all for, too, and we do it without the destructive baggage of unfettered capitalism, which they all neatly leave off their laundry list." Um, "unfettered capitalism" IS the non-initiation of force and live and let live! The only way to fetter capitalism is to USE force!
I would post that, if I weren't BLOCKED...
And then he says we "cheer it on." WHAT???
I'm starting to think we may have found our Idiot of the Year.
Quote from: D on December 31, 2013, 02:44:56 PM
I'm starting to think we may have found our Idiot of the Year.
Seconded.
Quote from: D on December 31, 2013, 02:44:56 PM
I'm starting to think we may have found our Idiot of the Year.
Unfortunately, I've already got the podcast in the can...
(Besides, the one I actually picked is still worse!)
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 31, 2013, 02:42:21 PM
And fail like this: "The other thing these libertarians did, so predictably and at least a little more productively, is try to tout the virtues of their political philosophy. "Freedom, no initiation of force, no corporate welfare, no censorship, no drug war, peace...no initiation of force, individual liberty, live and let live, no corporate welfare, no drug war, etc." Yes? So? Those are things progressive liberals are all for, too, and we do it without the destructive baggage of unfettered capitalism, which they all neatly leave off their laundry list." Um, "unfettered capitalism" IS the non-initiation of force and live and let live! The only way to fetter capitalism is to USE force!
I would post that, if I weren't BLOCKED...
And then he says we "cheer it on." WHAT???
*deep breath*
Okay, I'm only doing this because I feel I owe you for all the times you've helped me in getting information, with debates and stuff. I went and posted this on the blog entry:
Quote from: TDogAnd fail like this: "The other thing these libertarians did, so predictably and at least a little more productively, is try to tout the virtues of their political philosophy. "Freedom, no initiation of force, no corporate welfare, no censorship, no drug war, peace...no initiation of force, individual liberty, live and let live, no corporate welfare, no drug war, etc." Yes? So? Those are things progressive liberals are all for, too, and we do it without the destructive baggage of unfettered capitalism, which they all neatly leave off their laundry list."
Um, "unfettered capitalism" IS the non-initiation of force and live and let live! The only way to fetter capitalism is to USE force! Just once it'd be nice to see a statist who knows their definitions.
And really? You believe that? Okay. Say I don't want to fund something you want me to (yes, even science funding via the state) and would rather spend it on something else. Are you going to stop me?
If yes, you're a free market person and even an anarcho capitalist and libertarian.
If not, then grats, you do believe in the initiation of force. Simple, no?
Quote from: T dog on December 31, 2013, 02:54:44 PM
*deep breath*
Okay, I'm only doing this because I feel I owe you for all the times you've helped me in getting information, with debates and stuff. I went and posted this on the blog entry:
/sigh
I had to add this addendum:
*If no, you're a free market person and even an anarcho capitalist and libertarian.
If yet, then grats, you do believe in the initiation of force. Simple, no?
Damn bogons.
and then add a 3rd comment: *yes, not 'yet'.
Damn bogons...making me look bad. Oh well, can't blame a guy for trying, eh? I'm surprised they haven't blocked me too.
bloody hell, I posted it on the wrong blog entry too (posted it on the original one.) Goddamnit. Gonna post it on the other one too (against my better judgement).
Okay, last post, this time to the "So I invented a new law the other day" blog entry:
Quote from: TDogAnd fail like this: "The other thing these libertarians did, so predictably and at least a little more productively, is try to tout the virtues of their political philosophy. "Freedom, no initiation of force, no corporate welfare, no censorship, no drug war, peace...no initiation of force, individual liberty, live and let live, no corporate welfare, no drug war, etc." Yes? So? Those are things progressive liberals are all for, too, and we do it without the destructive baggage of unfettered capitalism, which they all neatly leave off their laundry list."
Um, "unfettered capitalism" IS the non-initiation of force and live and let live! The only way to fetter capitalism is to USE force!
Just once it'd be nice to see a statist who knows their definitions.
And really? You don't believe in the initiation of force? Okay. Say I don't want to fund something you want me to (yes, even science funding via the state--no sacred cows please. :P) and would rather spend my own money on something else. Are you going to stop me? By force if necessary?
If not, you're a free market libertarian too.
If yes, grats, you do believe in the initiation of force. Simple, no?
Stick a fork in me, I'm done. @.@
Quote from: T dog on December 31, 2013, 03:01:31 PM
Okay, last post, this time to the "So I invented a new law the other day" blog entry:
Stick a fork in me, I'm done. @.@
*grabs fork* You can include me
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 31, 2013, 02:42:21 PM
And fail like this: "The other thing these libertarians did, so predictably and at least a little more productively, is try to tout the virtues of their political philosophy. "Freedom, no initiation of force, no corporate welfare, no censorship, no drug war, peace...no initiation of force, individual liberty, live and let live, no corporate welfare, no drug war, etc." Yes? So? Those are things progressive liberals are all for, too, and we do it without the destructive baggage of unfettered capitalism, which they all neatly leave off their laundry list." Um, "unfettered capitalism" IS the non-initiation of force and live and let live! The only way to fetter capitalism is to USE force!
I would post that, if I weren't BLOCKED...
And then he says we "cheer it on." WHAT???
Lel. PZ Myers is either ignorant or flat out lying when he says that progressive liberals don't believe in the initiation of force. If anything, they love the initiation of force. Progressive liberals sure support individual liberty... except when it comes to things like fast food, cigarettes, light bulbs, etc. They support a larger welfare state, which involves forcibly taking money from people who produce and giving it to people who don't produce. They believe in gun control, which involves forcibly taking guns from law-abiding citizens. They also want to increase taxes on the rich, and just by looking at the very nature of taxes, any rational thinker can easily conclude that taxation is theft.
I could go on, but I feel like I've wasted enough time pointing out PZ's stupidity.
LOL! Looks like PZ Myers is still peeved at us: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/01/01/wouldnt-everyone-love-to-have-a-conversation-with-jamie-dimon/
"While we've sucked in some libertarians nattering away in another thread, maybe they'd like to take a moment to explain the unrepentant evil of the American banking industry?"
Challenge accepted. I only need two words to answer that: Federal Reserve.
Quote from: BlameThe1st on January 02, 2014, 11:28:25 AM
LOL! Looks like PZ Myers is still peeved at us: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/01/01/wouldnt-everyone-love-to-have-a-conversation-with-jamie-dimon/
"While we've sucked in some libertarians nattering away in another thread, maybe they'd like to take a moment to explain the unrepentant evil of the American banking industry?"
Challenge accepted. I only need two words to answer that: Federal Reserve.
Can you go post there? While you're at it, why not ask why the only examples they can come up with are heavily regulated industries like banking and health care?
Quote from: BlameThe1st on January 02, 2014, 11:28:25 AM
LOL! Looks like PZ Myers is still peeved at us: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/01/01/wouldnt-everyone-love-to-have-a-conversation-with-jamie-dimon/
"While we’ve sucked in some libertarians nattering away in another thread, maybe they’d like to take a moment to explain the unrepentant evil of the American banking industry?"
Challenge accepted. I only need two words to answer that: Federal Reserve.
(And to add to Shane's post) And why we don't see that issue with computers--the freest industry we have.
Honestly, this guy, along with others like him on, say, the badly misnamed League of Reason and even worse named Rational Wiki give atheists a bad name.
Oh look, PZ is scapegoating libertarians over the UCSB shootings!
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/06/01/clearly-the-only-reasonable-diagnosis-is-that-libertarians-are-mentally-ill/ (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/06/01/clearly-the-only-reasonable-diagnosis-is-that-libertarians-are-mentally-ill/)
QuoteAs long as we're diagnosing mental illness from angry manifestos on the internet, that is. This rant from Stefan Molyneux is NSFW, but apparently the Rodger mental state is widespread among the leaders of Libertarianism.
I'm too afraid to read the comment section.
Quote from: BlameThe1st on June 01, 2014, 02:40:17 PM
Oh look, PZ is scapegoating libertarians over the UCSB shootings!
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/06/01/clearly-the-only-reasonable-diagnosis-is-that-libertarians-are-mentally-ill/ (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/06/01/clearly-the-only-reasonable-diagnosis-is-that-libertarians-are-mentally-ill/)
I'm too afraid to read the comment section.
I kinda want to post Chris Cantwell's video to the comments section, but I'm afraid to even click the link. *Holds his nose and takes a deep breath* Well, here goes nothing...
Wow. He talks about "This rant from Stefan Molyneux," but he doesn't actually POST Stefan's video; the video is Sam Seder TALKING ABOUT Stefan (and we all know how reliable Seder is, right?).
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 01, 2014, 03:14:39 PM
Wow. He talks about "This rant from Stefan Molyneux," but he doesn't actually POST Stefan's video; the video is Sam Seder TALKING ABOUT Stefan (and we all know how reliable Seder is, right?).
1) Happy 4600th post. :P
2) I figured I'd respond to that screed as follows:
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfUmbLAOz4
Also, he killed 6 men, but only 2 women...sounds more like a feminist, which seems to define war as 'not giving us free bags of goodies.' Feminism is first world problems in ideological form.
As for the mentally ill bit: Libertarians support a social order in which free individuals make voluntary contracts with each other, and no one can rightly initiate physical force or duress against anyone else. Is that vision so obviously unattractive that we have to refer its supporters for psychological evaluation?
We might instead wonder at the psychological condition of those who would denounce such a system: might they be motivated, for all their noble talk, by nothing but base envy of those with more material wealth than they, or by a pathological desire to dominate other people?"
Quote from: Travis Retriever on June 01, 2014, 03:21:04 PM
1) Happy 4600th post. :P
2) I figured I'd respond to that screed as follows:
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfUmbLAOz4
Also, he killed 6 men, but only 2 women...sounds more like a feminist, which seems to define war as 'not giving us free bags of goodies.' Feminism is first world problems in ideological form.
As for the mentally ill bit: Libertarians support a social order in which free individuals make voluntary contracts with each other, and no one can rightly initiate physical force or duress against anyone else. Is that vision so obviously unattractive that we have to refer its supporters for psychological evaluation?
We might instead wonder at the psychological condition of those who would denounce such a system: might they be motivated, for all their noble talk, by nothing but base envy of those with more material wealth than they, or by a pathological desire to dominate other people?"
He put himself outside of any form of rational debate when he included in his definition of rational 'agrees with me'.
I'll be honest, I consider PZ Myers to be a joke. It really frustrates me that his blog is apparently the most widely read "science" blog on the internet.
Quote from: Travis Retriever on June 01, 2014, 03:21:04 PM
1) Happy 4600th post. :P
2) I figured I'd respond to that screed as follows:
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfUmbLAOz4
Also, he killed 6 men, but only 2 women...sounds more like a feminist, which seems to define war as 'not giving us free bags of goodies.' Feminism is first world problems in ideological form.
As for the mentally ill bit: Libertarians support a social order in which free individuals make voluntary contracts with each other, and no one can rightly initiate physical force or duress against anyone else. Is that vision so obviously unattractive that we have to refer its supporters for psychological evaluation?
We might instead wonder at the psychological condition of those who would denounce such a system: might they be motivated, for all their noble talk, by nothing but base envy of those with more material wealth than they, or by a pathological desire to dominate other people?"
Decided to check out the comment section after you left your comment. The aftermath is akin to full grown men soiling themselves. The replies are your typical anti-libertarian talking points. "Oh, you think the market is God!" "Oh, if you hate government, move to Somalia!" There's a reason why I've titled my video series "Anti-Libertarians Can't Think." If they truly applied critical thinking to their own criticisms of libertarianism, they wouldn't make such insipid points in the first place.
Here's one especially stupid comment I LOLed at: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/06/01/clearly-the-only-reasonable-diagnosis-is-that-libertarians-are-mentally-ill/comment-page-1/#comment-805322 (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/06/01/clearly-the-only-reasonable-diagnosis-is-that-libertarians-are-mentally-ill/comment-page-1/#comment-805322)
QuoteLibertarianism applied to urban planning: remove all the traffic lights and trust that the invisible hand of traffic flow and people's own better nature will ensure everyone gets where they want to go in a timely fashion.
Do these dimbulbs realize that such roads already exist? Yes, believe it or not, there are roads where there are not traffic lights or signs or surface markings. Not only that, but they're shared by cars and bikes and pedestrians alike--all at the same time! Yes, these roads do exist. They're called shared spaces.
And do these "libertarian roads" devolve into total anarchy without signs or rules? No! Actually, quite the opposite. They're rather safe to travel on. In West Palm Beach, Florida, the removal of traffic signals and road markings brought pedestrians into much closer contact with cars, removing any distinction between sidewalk and roadway. The result has been slower traffic, fewer accidents, and shorter trip times.
Let me repeat that again for the mindless statists who may be reading this: the removal of traffic signs in West Palm Beach has led to fewer traffic accidents. Fewer. Not more!
What's that? You mean to tell me that order can arise without rules and regulation controlling everything? Gee, it's almost as if order can arise spontaneously. What a concept!
Quote from: BlameThe1st on June 01, 2014, 10:54:23 PM
And do these “libertarian roads” devolve into total anarchy without signs or rules? No! Actually, quite the opposite. They’re rather safe to travel on. In West Palm Beach, Florida, the removal of traffic signals and road markings brought pedestrians into much closer contact with cars, removing any distinction between sidewalk and roadway. The result has been slower traffic, fewer accidents, and shorter trip times.
I don't mean to pick nits, but a much better word would be "anomie" instead of anarchy. Anarchy--without rulers, NOT without rules--would be like two people talking without a third party violently intervening. I think I know what you meant, but it's a way I've seen the word misused a LOT. Kind of like the way people misuse the word regulate, which, because it also means "to keep regular/consistent" and (more modern definition of) "to control" seems to have a lot of people--statists, natch--thinking the latter is the only way to achieve the former. Language can be a pain like that. >.<*
That bit aside, I thank you for your support/kind words. :) And yeah, I really need to find that quote from Harry Browne (or someone else) where at the end he says, "You move! America is the place we go if we want to be free. You want theocracy, take your pick, you want Socialized Healthcare, go to the UK, Canada, etc. Why should I have to move? YOU move!"
Quote from: Travis Retriever on June 02, 2014, 10:53:09 AM
That bit aside, I thank you for your support/kind words. :) And yeah, I really need to find that quote from Harry Browne (or someone else) where at the end he says, "You move! America is the place we go if we want to be free. You want theocracy, take your pick, you want Socialized Healthcare, go to the UK, Canada, etc. Why should I have to move? YOU move!"
I thought that was me?
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 02, 2014, 11:16:09 AM
I thought that was me?
IIRC, you were the one who posted it, but it might have been you, yeah. Awesome quote, either way. :)
Oh boy, look who's targeting Stefan Molyneaux yet again: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/06/27/molyneux-makes-no-sense/
And big surprise: he's equating libertarianism with sexism!
Quote from: BlameThe1st on June 27, 2014, 12:42:18 PM
Oh boy, look who's targeting Stefan Molyneaux yet again: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/06/27/molyneux-makes-no-sense/
And big surprise: he's equating libertarianism with sexism!
So many strawmen, so little time.
I'm surprised anyone takes PZ Myers seriously anymore.
Quote from: BreadGod on June 30, 2014, 12:25:34 AM
So many strawmen, so little time.
I'm surprised anyone takes PZ Myers seriously anymore.
Does anyone know if his public irrationality is affecting his professional life yet?
Quote from: evensgrey on June 30, 2014, 08:00:04 AM
Does anyone know if his public irrationality is affecting his professional life yet?
If it ever does, I'm sure he'll just consider himself a martyr. Those horrible Libertarians who've taken over the world...
I suppose it depends on what you mean. My understanding is that he is tenured, which means he is given a much bigger leash to begin with. Plus, he comes from the evolutionary biology department, which is a lot "harder" a science, which means that in his actual academic work would be judged by its data. Additionally, a lot of hard sciences are filled with kooky people who don't use Alder's razor (they constantly say that is the only way to get knowledge) consistently when they get outside their narrow field. -- The reason may be because they don't want to admit that they would have to admit that to do so would render them either noncognitivists (in the epistemological sense, not meta-ethical)-- So they expand what "proof" is to include all sorts of things, like personal anecdotes. -- Therefore, no personal beliefs, except for maybe the outright insane, would not hurt him. Just look at Duesberg, he may have seriously harmed every part of his career but he still has a job, still gets published and invited to different conferences.
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 30, 2014, 08:55:56 AM
If it ever does, I'm sure he'll just consider himself a martyr. Those horrible Libertarians who've taken over the world...
Yeah, the great Libertarian conspiracy--we want to take over the world so we can leave you alone...*chortle*
Quote from: BogosityForumUser on June 30, 2014, 12:12:34 PM
I suppose it depends on what you mean. My understanding is that he is tenured, which means he is given a much bigger leash to begin with. Plus, he comes from the evolutionary biology department, which is a lot "harder" a science, which means that in his actual academic work would be judged by its data. Additionally, a lot of hard sciences are filled with kooky people who don't use Alder's razor (they constantly say that is the only way to get knowledge) consistently when they get outside their narrow field. -- The reason may be because they don't want to admit that they would have to admit that to do so would render them either noncognitivists (in the epistemological sense, not meta-ethical)-- So they expand what "proof" is to include all sorts of things, like personal anecdotes. -- Therefore, no personal beliefs, except for maybe the outright insane, would not hurt him. Just look at Duesberg, he may have seriously harmed every part of his career but he still has a job, still gets published and invited to different conferences.
I believe it is necessary to point out that personal anecdotes are useful and valid in an argument, when one is using them to disprove an absolute claim, by showing that the claimed thing is in fact NOT absolute at all. Like anything with a limited range of applicability (which is almost everything), you need to understand the range of applicability and only apply them where applicable.
Personal anecdotes are also a perfectly valid basis for constructing a hypothesis to be tested, but generally not a valid means of testing it. (Mind you, almost everything is a valid basis for constructing hypotheses. The origin of a hypothesis is usually irrelevant to the question of validity, which can only be assessed scientifically by testing the predictions of the hypothesis against reality, usually by statistical means.)
Back to the subject of PZ, if he starts behaving in scientific meetings the way he operates on his website, he's going to go down fast. Recall that one of his criteria on Freeethought for being 'rational' is 'agrees with me'.
Once again, PZ Myers (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/15/zeteticon-and-atheist-politics/) pulls a "No True Atheist" by insisting that only progressive liberals like himself are the "True Atheists" and everyone else is just imitating:
QuoteSilverman also made the case that while he opposed social conservatism, he had no problem reaching out to fiscal conservatives. I do. Republican economic policies are disastrous, doing great harm to the poor and underprivileged, and serve mainly the wealthy and corporations (although the Democrats are only slightly better...but they are better). A Republican atheism is a wealthy white atheism. We need to reach further, to a more representative American community, and approvingly proselytizing at CPAC does us no favor.
Also, the one wing of American conservatism that has a large contingent of atheists is the libertarians. No, thank you. We've got plenty of them in atheism already, and in fact, they seem to be a prominent source of atheist opposition to social justice issues. Again, not a religious cause of that problem, unless you want to call worshipping the Invisible Hand of the Market as a kind of culty religion. Perhaps I should have asked my question with a hypothetical atheist Rand Paul as our president.
And as always, he misinterprets the "invisible hand of the free market" as a god metaphor, even though statists like himself that the government needs to be designed by an intelligent designer through divine intervention--excuse me, planned by a central planner through government intervention.
The irony is that free market capitalism is often slandered as "economic Darwinism." But that implies that there is no god, only natural selection. So which is it, statheists? Is the free market god, or is it Darwinism? It can't be both!
Quote from: BlameThe1st on September 15, 2014, 09:59:37 PM
Once again, PZ Myers (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/15/zeteticon-and-atheist-politics/) pulls a "No True Atheist" by insisting that only progressive liberals like himself are the "True Atheists" and everyone else is just imitating:
And as always, he misinterprets the "invisible hand of the free market" as a god metaphor, even though statists like himself that the government needs to be designed by an intelligent designer through divine intervention--excuse me, planned by a central planner through government intervention.
The irony is that free market capitalism is often slandered as "economic Darwinism." But that implies that there is no god, only natural selection. So which is it, statheists? Is the free market god, or is it Darwinism? It can't be both!
Indeed.
Quote from: BlameThe1st on September 15, 2014, 09:59:37 PM
Once again, PZ Myers (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/15/zeteticon-and-atheist-politics/) pulls a "No True Atheist" by insisting that only progressive liberals like himself are the "True Atheists" and everyone else is just imitating:
And as always, he misinterprets the "invisible hand of the free market" as a god metaphor, even though statists like himself that the government needs to be designed by an intelligent designer through divine intervention--excuse me, planned by a central planner through government intervention.
The irony is that free market capitalism is often slandered as "economic Darwinism." But that implies that there is no god, only natural selection. So which is it, statheists? Is the free market god, or is it Darwinism? It can't be both!
Also, where is he getting this "Libertarians are the source of Atheist opposition to Social Justice" thing? Libertarianism is all about equal opportunity, which is basically all that can be promised, and all that should be asked. Now, there are those on the left who think that should equal equal results, but it don't and it can't no matter how much social justice warrioring one may do.
Quote from: dallen68 on September 16, 2014, 03:19:49 AM
Also, where is he getting this "Libertarians are the source of Atheist opposition to Social Justice" thing? Libertarianism is all about equal opportunity, which is basically all that can be promised, and all that should be asked. Now, there are those on the left who think that should equal equal results, but it don't and it can't no matter how much social justice warrioring one may do.
"Social justice" is truly an Orwellian term...
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/10/28/authoritarianism-and-dogma-are-not-the-same-as-morality/ (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/10/28/authoritarianism-and-dogma-are-not-the-same-as-morality/)
In this post, PZ Myers argues that's you don't need an authority figure such as God to dictate what is moral and what isn't (which I'm sure most atheists on this board would agree with):
Quote"But they don't have a higher authority telling them to be good!" I would think having an autonomous sense of right and wrong would be superior to requiring someone else to tell you what you should do.
But then he concludes on this level of fail:
QuoteUnless, of course, you're some kind of libertarian dork. You have the option to be an entirely selfish jerk, and no god is going to stop you, but I think that position is ultimately self-defeating.
Except that I'm pretty sure that most libertarians would agree with his sentiment that "an autonomous sense of right and wrong would be superior to requiring someone else to tell you what you should do."
Of course, I have the feeling that PZ only thinks that he and his ilk are capable of being absolutely moral in the absence of an authority figure, that they don't need anyone else to prevent them from murdering, raping, pillaging and plundering; however, they feel that other people (like those "libertarians") are not as morally superior as them, and thus need brutal force to keep them in line. So, in other words, he and the rest of FTB are authoritarians.
Perhaps someone should challenge him on that in the comments section.
Quote from: BlameThe1st on October 28, 2014, 01:18:10 PM
Except that I'm pretty sure that most libertarians would agree with his sentiment that "an autonomous sense of right and wrong would be superior to requiring someone else to tell you what you should do."
Yes, and indeed, we see statists as committing this same fallacy whenever we say there might be other ways of stopping crime.
QuotePerhaps someone should challenge him on that in the comments section.
I would, but I was banned long ago. Someone just link them to this video:
[yt]2O_QdTSi-B8[/yt]
You might not see this post, but my ancap friend is calling in to the Majority Report tomorrow and debating Sam Seder. This is awesome! I share your frustrations, Shane, with Sam Seder. The first video of his that I saw was "Libertarian wants right to buy any Lightbulb he wants- own slaves." As if being able to buy any lightbulb I want is not my right(why can't the seller just raise the price of the one that hurts the environment or whatever Sam's argument was, and sell the more energy efficient one for less money, or sell them in a 2 pac- one good, one bad- to distribute the costs of energy efficiency or lack thereof. Plus, Sam doesn't even understand libertarianism enough to know that slavery was a government enforced system, the Underground Railroad was a free market, Lincoln never freed a single slave, and most importantly, that slavery violates the NAP!
Quote from: libertarian__revolution on December 10, 2015, 12:44:41 AM
You might not see this post, but my ancap friend is calling in to the Majority Report tomorrow and debating Sam Seder. This is awesome! I share your frustrations, Shane, with Sam Seder. The first video of his that I saw was "Libertarian wants right to buy any Lightbulb he wants- own slaves." As if being able to buy any lightbulb I want is not my right(why can't the seller just raise the price of the one that hurts the environment or whatever Sam's argument was, and sell the more energy efficient one for less money, or sell them in a 2 pac- one good, one bad- to distribute the costs of energy efficiency or lack thereof. Plus, Sam doesn't even understand libertarianism enough to know that slavery was a government enforced system, the Underground Railroad was a free market, Lincoln never freed a single slave, and most importantly, that slavery violates the NAP!
Yeah, every video of Seder's I've seen is like that. That's why I won't debate him: he doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about and he won't take correction. Post the video when it's online.
I don't understand what Seder means when he says "supply side economics," which is the phrase he uses to describe Austrian/Chicago school economics. If we were such economists, wouldn't we support artificially stimulating supply? To me it sounds just like a debate between a religious person and an atheist. "Oh, ur not a Christian, then ur a Muslim." "No, I'm and atheist."
I guess since he is a "demand side" economist in his terms, he thinks everyone in opposition to him must be supply side, but don't u stimulate supply with demand? Isn't that the broken window fallacy?
I dunno. Debating someone like sedar is like talking to a brick wall.
Quote from: libertarian__revolution on December 11, 2015, 05:21:44 PM
I don't understand what Seder means when he says "supply side economics," which is the phrase he uses to describe Austrian/Chicago school economics.
Even though it isn't. Supply-side economics is bogus the same way Keynesianism is; the difference being that, where Keynesianism tries to boost Aggregate Demand with government spending, deficits, and transfer payments, supply-side economics tries to boost Aggregate Supply with subsidies and bailouts. It much more closely describes Obama's economic policy than Austrian economics.
QuoteIf we were such economists, wouldn't we support artificially stimulating supply?
Precisely.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 11, 2015, 07:00:58 AM
Yeah, every video of Seder's I've seen is like that. That's why I won't debate him: he doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about and he won't take correction. Post the video when it's online.
Actually, he's debating him during Christmas vacation from school. I wish him him luck since he's a freshman and he'll be debating someone mind-numbingly dumb as Sam Seder
[yt]7DhJ73JuWJY[/yt]
[yt]c3lXdW3WCVs[/yt]
Here's a response to ur healthcare video of u haven't seen it already
And here's another [yt]IkK7mK0rAIQ[/yt]
The first one, I only listened up until 1:46, when he bleated "UNLESS YOU'RE POOR!" when I'd JUST GOTTEN THROUGH SAYING that it was the cost that was the issue. If that's how little he's going to pay attention to my video, I don't see why I should pay ANY attention to his.
EDIT: Also, notice in the comments that there are a LOT of replies to evensgrey (and from usual suspects like No To Pseudoscience and njanovic1980), but his actual comments are gone. Deleted? Yeah, I don't think this video is worth bothering with.
ANOTHER EDIT: Actually, looking through the comments, I DID watch the video and debunked it. It went over just about how you'd think...
The second is the long-debunked FSAthe1st garbage.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 12, 2015, 07:30:09 AM
EDIT: Also, notice in the comments that there are a LOT of replies to evensgrey (and from usual suspects like No To Pseudoscience and njanovic1980), but his actual comments are gone. Deleted? Yeah, I don't think this video is worth bothering with.
Not the first time I've seen someone entirely disappear from the comments while replies to them remain. I doubt that the idiots are stupid enough to not remove replies if deleting comments, since it demonstrates the comments were made. I think this is just another fail Google inserted into YouTube.
Quote from: evensgrey on December 12, 2015, 09:30:53 AM
Not the first time I've seen someone entirely disappear from the comments while replies to them remain. I doubt that the idiots are stupid enough to not remove replies if deleting comments, since it demonstrates the comments were made. I think this is just another fail Google inserted into YouTube.
Except those replies are from more than two years ago, before all of that started happening.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 12, 2015, 11:32:20 AM
Except those replies are from more than two years ago, before all of that started happening.
Two problems with that objection:
1) This has been happening for more than two years, but after Google started messing up YouTube (I won't use Google+ for any purpose, so I stopped commenting on videos when it became mandatory, which was 2 years ago, and I commented about this phenomena on a video it was happening on).
2) New comment filtering functions would still apply to old comments.
Quote from: libertarian__revolution on December 12, 2015, 02:30:24 AM
[yt]7DhJ73JuWJY[/yt]
[yt]c3lXdW3WCVs[/yt]
Here's a response to ur healthcare video of u haven't seen it already
And here's another [yt]IkK7mK0rAIQ[/yt]
I put the link between the brackets. What else did I do
Quote from: libertarian__revolution on December 12, 2015, 02:30:24 AM
[yt]7DhJ73JuWJY[/yt]
[yt]c3lXdW3WCVs[/yt]
Here's a response to ur healthcare video of u haven't seen it already
And here's another [yt]IkK7mK0rAIQ[/yt]
The Swiss rejected single payer
California rejected single payer
Recently single payer went nowhere in Vermont because they said too it was expensive. As far as I can tell opinion hasn't shifted towards it, so I don't think these videos are worth anyone's attention.
Quote from: Dallas Wildman on December 13, 2015, 04:41:47 AM
The Swiss rejected single payer
California rejected single payer
Recently single payer went nowhere in Vermont because they said too it was expensive. As far as I can tell opinion hasn't shifted towards it, so I don't think these videos are worth anyone's attention.
Incidentally, anyone who tries to argue based on Canada has a single payer system is demonstrating ignorance. Not only does Canada not have single payer, it's actually ILLEGAL here. It has been recognized by our Supreme Court that everyone has a right to access needed medical care in a timely manner, and government policy is not permitted to interfere, which has been recognized since the Morgentaller decision (and that decision would be reversed if this principle were overturned, rolling us back to a very restrictive and rather expensive system of abortion regulations). As no single payer system can deliver needed services in a timely manner, single payer is a violation of rights.
Quote from: evensgrey on December 13, 2015, 07:00:35 AM
As no single payer system can deliver needed services in a timely manner, single payer is a violation of rights.
What ?!! What kind of reasoning can lead to that conclusion ?
Quote from: AdeptusHereticus on December 13, 2015, 07:47:54 AM
What ?!! What kind of reasoning can lead to that conclusion ?
That's an observation. The case involved a man in Quebec who needed treatment for a back problem that was going to be years in waiting time. When he tried to arrange to pay for it privately, the provincial government passed a law banning private payment for services covered by the government scam. He filed suit, and the Supreme Court eventually ruled in his favor on the basis described, since the needed treatment HADN'T been provided within years of the need. (It happens everywhere. The UK's NHS was internationally infamous for having multi-year waiting lists for routine surgeries like tonsillectomies back in the 1970s, resulting in children suffering through numerous, needless infections and often having them delayed until after puberty, when a tonsillectomy is notably worse for the patient. Since the Thatcher era private services have been taking up the slack, and these days typically handle things in less than two week that patients already waited two months for from the NHS.)
Well then those problems are specific to these systems, but not necessarily because of the nature of the government "participation". I don't know how these particular heathcare systems work, or were working, but I have never encountered such problems in France, nor have I heard of people encountering them. I would find it wierd too, because most healthcare facilities in France are private endeavours. They merely have to be upfront with their patient about the fact that they adhere to the national system or not, because it affects how much patients give from their own money, but they still are running a business and can't imagine them not putting their clients comfort at the forefront of their practice.
What kind of wierd voodoo magic happens in the canadian healthcare system to be that dysfunctionnal ?
Quote from: AdeptusHereticus on December 13, 2015, 08:02:36 PM
Well then those problems are specific to these systems, but not necessarily because of the nature of the government "participation". I don't know how these particular heathcare systems work, or were working, but I have never encountered such problems in France, nor have I heard of people encountering them. I would find it wierd too, because most healthcare facilities in France are private endeavours. They merely have to be upfront with their patient about the fact that they adhere to the national system or not, because it affects how much patients give from their own money, but they still are running a business and can't imagine them not putting their clients comfort at the forefront of their practice.
What kind of wierd voodoo magic happens in the canadian healthcare system to be that dysfunctionnal ?
Most hospitals in the UK aren't private though: not even close. In other words, you guys have a better system.
Actually what you have sounds like what most Arab countries have (East of the Nile anyways). Jordan is particularly famous for this--it's one of three leading medical tourist destinations in the world.
Quote from: libertarian__revolution on December 12, 2015, 11:57:08 AM
I put the link between the brackets. What else did I do
You have to remove everything except the video ID.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on December 13, 2015, 11:08:13 PM
Most hospitals in the UK aren't private though: not even close. In other words, you guys have a better system.
Actually what you have sounds like what most Arab countries have (East of the Nile anyways). Jordan is particularly famous for this--it's one of three leading medical tourist destinations in the world.
I could probably have guessed it while I was writing lol. Well, too late.
And what about Canada ? Is the source of the problem mentioned the same as it is for the UK ? And, aren't there any way in both those countries to compensate with private practices ? Are they too heavily regulated, or sometimes forbidden maybe ?
In France, although private hospitals are common, they still need to obtain a government authorization. In other words if you have the means and the will, you are not permitted to takes your own risks and open any hospital. Though I guess, while it is stupid, it might be that it should not be a concern while patients are satisfied.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 14, 2015, 06:25:09 AM
You have to remove everything except the video ID.
I learned how to do it:
[yt]U42HKyc4PP0[/yt]
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 01, 2014, 03:14:39 PM
Wow. He talks about "This rant from Stefan Molyneux," but he doesn't actually POST Stefan's video; the video is Sam Seder TALKING ABOUT Stefan (and we all know how reliable Seder is, right?).
What do you think the fundamental misconception Seder has when he "debates?"
Quote from: libertarian__revolution on February 14, 2016, 11:50:17 PM
What do you think the fundamental misconception Seder has when he "debates?"
That he's right and everyone else is wrong.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 15, 2016, 07:51:20 AM
That he's right and everyone else is wrong.
Very anti-skeptical of him.
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 30, 2014, 08:55:56 AM
If it ever does, I'm sure he'll just consider himself a martyr. Those horrible Libertarians who've taken over the world...
Schrodinger's libertarian: a fringe element nutter who is irrelevant, but who has taken over the world and controls it.