On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:15 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> Maybe YOU could repost?
No, see my previous post in this thread. I still feel the same. And
I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just am not interested in
discussing a subject that I feel has already been adequately
discussed, unless someone
John Williams wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:07 PM, David Hobby wrote:
That is what I'm taking away from this, too.
Dan's response seemed on topic to me.
If you would like to discuss any specific points from the last time
this came up (late last year), I would be glad to discuss. Please
quo
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:07 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> That is what I'm taking away from this, too.
> Dan's response seemed on topic to me.
If you would like to discuss any specific points from the last time
this came up (late last year), I would be glad to discuss. Please
quote the specific point
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
> Actually, I gave a lot more data this time
Do you mean that the reason you dropped out of the discussion last
time was because you could not respond to my specific points because
you did not have enough data?
In that case,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
Original Message:
-
From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
...
Just so you know:
1) I saw your similar post about this the first time, several weeks ago
2) We had a similar discussion last year
3) Because of 2) and things that you write
Original Message:
-
From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:30:03 -0700
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Dan M wrote:
> Your writings are consistent with the viewpoint of one
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Dan M wrote:
> Your writings are consistent with the viewpoint of one who knows government
> is the root cause of all that is wrong a priori, and needs not look at data
> to look at the truth.
Just so you know:
1) I saw your similar post about this the first time
> -Original Message-
> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
> Behalf Of John Williams
> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:41 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Why not discuss the topic?
>
>
>
This, of course, is purely libertarian 'capitalist' egotistical selfishness.
If everyone thought and behaved liked this - and it became governmental
policy - then we would indeed be living under Barbarism.
DANNY
2009/7/20 Alberto Monteiro
> Nick Arnett wrote:
> >
> >> It seems odd to conclude
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Alberto Monteiro
wrote:
>
> G*vernment is consent robbery.
Sounds like my neighbor who says he isn't afraid to walk the streets at
night because "you can't rape the willing."
Yes, it is "consent robbery" if you choose that metaphor (or oxymoron).
There are other
Nick Arnett wrote:
>
>> It seems odd to conclude that the way to get other people to
>> behave as one thinks they should behave is to coerce them
>> at gunpoint
>
> There are people with guns showing up to demand that you pay
> your taxes? That suggests to me that you've been a bad, bad boy.
>
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> Democracy, which is the subject at hand, is not based on that assumption and
> I suspect you learned that in high school civics, so I imagine you are being
> disingenuous.
Ah, that explains it. I thought the subject at hand was health care.
I
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:09 AM, John Williams
> wrote:
> Many apologies for being able to make my point without being long winded.
Apparently I was too subtle. I simply meant to convey that there are
many questions that can be posed
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:33 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
> Then don't throw them all out. I never suggested such a thing. I
> merely stated my preference for discussing ethical questions on their
> own merits rather than assuming that majority opinion is the ultimate
> word on every subject.
Dem
John wrote:
Limiting myself to the US, and just listing a few incidents that come to
> mind:
>
> Indian Removal Act
> Legal slavery
> Jim Crow laws
> Coverture
> Japanese American internment
> Joseph McCarthy
> Richard Nixon
>
Are we waiting for historical perspective to add Bush/Cheney to that l
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:09 AM, John Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> > If regulations and restrictions have such a detrimental effect then why
> do
> > other, more restrictive nations have much more efficient and effective
> > health care systems?
>
>
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> If we're going to throw out all the flawed human institutions,
> nothing will be left, including your ideas.
Then don't throw them all out. I never suggested such a thing. I
merely stated my preference for discussing ethical questions on thei
If we're going to throw out all the flawed human institutions,
nothing will be left, including your ideas. I don't have to look
beyond my immediate family to see the injustices that our system has
allowed, but "good" isn't the same as "perfect." Argue better,
please.
On 7/19/09, John Williams
Limiting myself to the US, and just listing a few incidents that come to mind:
Indian Removal Act
Legal slavery
Jim Crow laws
Coverture
Japanese American internment
Joseph McCarthy
Richard Nixon
I think that any system of ethics that equates legality with doing
what is right, that holds that the
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 1:29 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
> It seems odd to conclude that the way to get other people to behave as
> one thinks they should behave is to coerce them at gunpoint
There are people with guns showing up to demand that you pay your taxes?
That suggests to me that you've
>From past behavior, it does not seem wise to expect politicians to be
unselfish and to make altruistic decisions to help people. Indeed, the
dramatic failure of large centrally planned economies has demonstrated
that it is not wise to even expect politicians to know how to keep
mundane things in a
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Dan M wrote:
> If someone pays for full ticket family health insurance with COBRA, the
> price is about $12k/hear. If someone wants to buy insurance, there are a
> number of possibilities. First, they can be a young person or a young
> family with no history of
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 2:49 AM, John Williams wrote:
>
> And I resent the government forcing me to spend much of my surplus
> income on people like the 87-year-old so that I have much less to help
> people like the child born in Niger.
I believe history has clearly show the foolhardiness of tru
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Dan M wrote:
> Agreed. But, where he and I agree and where a John would disagree is that a
> free market can be shaped by the laws within which it resides. For example,
> if you required insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions, you
> would get rid
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> The fundamental truth behind that writing is conveniently ignored by
> champions of "liberty" who insist that "freedom" frees them from a
> community's obligation to organize itself to care for those in need.
>
> It is a strange sort of liberat
> -Original Message-
> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
> Behalf Of John Williams
> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:41 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Why not discuss the topic?
> No chutzpah
> -Original Message-
> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
> Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:55 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Why not discuss the topic?
>
> On
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
>
>
> Franklin founded the first one in the States, arguably the first of the
> modern mutuals. But he didn't invent shared or mutualised risk.
>
>
Risk has been mutual forever. John Donne said it well:
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Charlie said:
Yeah, that's what I was alluding to with Mediterranean traders.
Guaranteed by Hamurabi (sp?) himself, IIRC.
Oh, okay. And yes, it's mentioned in Hammurabi's "law code" (which was
probably a set of examples of what the king would do or had done in
different circumstances rath
On 18/07/2009, at 5:33 PM, Richard Baker wrote:
Charlie said:
It originated a long time before Benjy. Traders in the
Mediterranean used a form of insurance to indemnify the trader
against loss if the cargo was stolen, and mutualised risk was used
by Chinese traders (who would spread thei
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Dave Land wrote:
> Your presumption of the
> freedom to behave this way comes an exorbitant cost to others on this
> list, but you seem to have no problem demanding that we pay that price.
I respect your freedom to choose not to pay "that price". I will not
compl
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> If regulations and restrictions have such a detrimental effect then why do
> other, more restrictive nations have much more efficient and effective
> health care systems?
That is a complicated subject, and I do not believe I claimed that
t
Dave said:
Your presumption of the freedom to behave this way comes an
exorbitant cost to others on this
list, but you seem to have no problem demanding that we pay that
price.
Really? And there I was thinking that it was easy to skim or skip
posts that don't interest you, and even dialup
John wrote:
No, it was not. The myriad government restrictions have a significant
> effect on costs.
If regulations and restrictions have such a detrimental effect then why do
other, more restrictive nations have much more efficient and effective
health care systems?
Doug
_
On Jul 18, 2009, at 12:20 AM, John Williams wrote:
There are also people who do not seem to know what freedom actually
means. Nor respect, respect enough to understand that each person
knows what is best for themselves.
Evidently, for some people, "freedom" means the right to refuse to
partici
Charlie said:
It originated a long time before Benjy. Traders in the Mediterranean
used a form of insurance to indemnify the trader against loss if the
cargo was stolen, and mutualised risk was used by Chinese traders
(who would spread their cargos across many vessels to lower the
total r
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
> There is nothing you wrote in the last post that makes rational or
> compassionate sense to me. There is nothing I can respond to. We're too
> different.
Everyone is different. That makes the world an interesting and wonderful place.
> A
John:
I just don't live on the same planet that you do, I guess.
There is nothing you wrote in the last post that makes rational or
compassionate sense to me. There is nothing I can respond to. We're
too different.
All I can say is that I'm glad the Libertarians and Ayn Rand
worshippers
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
> But you're not restricted from any of them.
You listed certain things with minimal restrictions, but not ones that
have more substantial restrictions.
> Can they? When was the last time you had to pay a full-billed price for a
> routine
On Jul 17, 2009, at 10:14 PM, John Williams wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Warren
Ockrassa wrote:
On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:15 PM, John Williams wrote:
I guess you've never visited an "herbal" healer then, or someone
who used
"reiki" or "healing touch". You're not prevented from doing
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
>
> On 18/07/2009, at 3:14 PM, John Williams wrote:
>>
>> You seem to have a more restrictive definition of freedom than I do.
>> My definition of freedom of choice is to be able to choose as I like
>> as long as I am not directly taking away so
On 18/07/2009, at 3:14 PM, John Williams wrote:
You seem to have a more restrictive definition of freedom than I do.
My definition of freedom of choice is to be able to choose as I like
as long as I am not directly taking away someone else's freedom.
...and that's the point of regulation - to
On 18/07/2009, at 1:55 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:07 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
There are arguements for the free market. My Congressman wants a free
market solution, and I respect him because he doesn't pretend facts
don't
exist.
But we have free market s
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:15 PM, John Williams wrote:
> I guess you've never visited an "herbal" healer then, or someone who used
> "reiki" or "healing touch". You're not prevented from doing so. The free
> market lets you.
Heh, being restrict
On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:15 PM, John Williams wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Warren
Ockrassa wrote:
But we have free market solutions. We've had them for decades.
For healthcare? Free market as in, minimal government restrictions on
what consumers can buy and what providers can sell?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>
> But we have free market solutions. We've had them for decades.
For healthcare? Free market as in, minimal government restrictions on
what consumers can buy and what providers can sell? I'd certainly like
to hear about such things.
> The
On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:07 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
There are arguements for the free market. My Congressman wants a free
market solution, and I respect him because he doesn't pretend facts
don't
exist.
But we have free market solutions. We've had them for decades. And for
many,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:07 PM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
> Health care if one gets seriously ill twice.
I ask again, afford exactly what? Health care is a broad term.
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
48 matches
Mail list logo
