Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by V. Kemp
Full post:
>>Maybe the private system is better but the numbers are skewed by America's horrible lack of hygiene?
Seriously.
Ever wondered why circumcision is all but compulsory in the USA, but not in the UK?<<
I already mocked your hygiene claim. You're calling me names because I made fun of you. How clever. I didn't "switch sides." You're obviously confused. Most people know better than to post misguided and unsupported insults with an arrogant tone when they're clueless.
Appreciates the sophisticated humor of Mr. Kemp, IC's sexiest poster!
Oh. Providers in the EU are "forced" to maintain a certain level of care. That will surely make up for wait times and financial limitations.
>>Trying to avoid a point....<<
My point was that we don't care whether you do or don't circumcise your children in America. It doesn't even come up. My point was that you are, on the facts, wrong. You can make whatever judgements you want regarding what % of Americans do, but, regardless, it won't support any silly claim of hygiene. It's weird for you to take an arrogant tone when you're spamming.
Laughs at others' misfortunes.
That was my starting point in getting into all of this in this thread. While I point out that men inevitably form governments (or are subjugated by others who have, thus giving them a governing authority nonetheless), having a governing document that specifies and limits the powers of said government at the time it is formed is paramount to defense from tyranny.
If a government is given whatever power it determines it requires to accomplish whatever it determines it wants to accomplish, this is tyranny--regardless of how long it takes said government to realize the full potential evil it can do upon its people. Tyranny isn't necessarily preceded by a coup d'
There's a reason there are no Anarchist regions on the globe. And it's the same reason there never will be.
I can't really play the devil's advocate here. I don't think supposed anarchists actually believe such a system could be actualized nor do I think they actually believe it would "work" by any measure for any period of time.
Law and social contract theory are not new. But they don't function without systems in place to ensure that they are actualized. When someone steals your bread you don't appeal to the community to recover what might be recovered and punish the perpetrator(s). If you had to do that, nothing but a sense of decency (which it would be silly to presume everyone had regarding stolen bread, seeing as there are people willing to murder billions--and some have even managed to murder millions) would discourage people from stealing bread. Theft of bread would be more common. This, of course, would discourage the production of bread, considering it's value in feeding oneself and one's people and value for trade would diminish, since stolen bread has no value--it is not in one's possession to consume nor trade nor anything else.
The point being, of course, the paramount importance of law and enforcement of the law. There's a reason there have been laws and law enforcement for tens of thousands of years. Law enforcement, even as envisioned by "anarchists," involves the association of men who make agreements and take action for their common good. And this is government. I say that I don't believe supposed anarchists actually believe such and such about their desired state of things because, ultimately, it seems they're just saying something about what sort of government they would like in place. Because, no matter the stated starting point, some sort of system (government) naturally occurs out of the associations of men. The theoretical starting point is irrelevant. X number of people can theoretically live in peace and harmony without a government. But X number of people live on earth, not a vacuum, and sooner or later they can form a government to defend themselves or be subjugated by outsiders. In either scenario, 100% of the time government exists. 0% of the time does a stateless society persist for more than moments in an isolated community.
Anarchists may refute my claims at any time by pointing out a 'successful' (by any measure) anarchist, stateless region of the globe any time in the earth's history. There aren't any. Happy hunting.
Your examples of defenders are all groups supported by bigger powers. The North Vietnamese didn't stand a chance. China and Russia, however, made things problematic.
Take your example of Afghanistan. Perfect illustration of my point. That the Taliban had power of such an undeveloped region--They're nothing but warlords who imposed control because they could. Though many surely would have loved to form a militia or hire a defense company to protect them from the Taliban, it didn't actually happen in the real world. The rich in Afghanistan were the oppressors, not some benevolent group as you propose who would be willing to pay heavily for protection of their property and business assets. Such protection is a business asset which can be used to exert control over others. And was in your fine example of Afghanistan.
You presume that people would do fine governing themselves. And I agree that people ought generally be left alone and allowed to govern themselves. But you include no real mechanism to protect people from those who would subjugate them. You speak of militia or a defense company. But in reality to maintain such an armed guard 24/7/365.25 to protect from men with vehicles and guns showing up, taking your stuff, and leaving requires support. And that support means some form of taxation. People have to feed and clothe and shelter and incentivize their protectors. And they need to have a say in directing their actions, lest they fail in their tasks or abuse their authority. And there you've just described a government. Call it what you want, if it has final authority to uphold (or impose) law and order, it's a government. You can call it the American Security Company, but if it acts like a government and has the power and functions of a government, it's probably a government.
Does not know the POWER of the DARK SIDE of the Force!
Haven't you heard? Clinton told us today that higher taxation is good for the economy. She was elected to the Senate because her husband was President. She knows what she's talking about. And he was a great president because... um... a lot of welfare recipients say so. And they're successful, so they must know what they're talking about.
has no idea how awesome that is
I was merely pointing out that government results in any case. To argue that we should have no government is just weird, because it will always form. If one argues that a very limited defense network should be the extent of government, then argue that. I'd probably support your position. But to claim one supports NO government is just weird. Because it doesn't happen. It never has. It never will. Even if 90% of the population agrees with you, they'll all inevitably form a government to protect themselves or be subjugated to someone who will.
likes to FIRE IT UP
Anarchy is the state from which whoever wants power the most attains it. There will always be people who want power over you. The problem now is those people are the US government, whereas the US government is supposed to protect its people from them.
But I've always found anarchist claims to be rather naive. You want a stateless society? What is to stop Warlord Kemp and his dozen armed and armored men from taxing you monthly? Any defense network you set up will end up governing defense, making it a limited government. And Warlord Kemp has the advantage of being equipped with the things he steals and his men are motivated by greed for the the things they steal. So you need a strong defense network. Government is born! Or you can not defend yourselves. And Wardlord Kemp becomes your governor. Government results either way.
A good Constitution is the basis for reasonable law. A bad constitution is the basis for being a slave to the state.
I don't call myself a libertarian, nor do I have a simple answer for your question. While I agree with their principles of freedom and getting off my nuts, I have various strong disagreements with the positions of the Libertarian party. I'm aware of monopolies' detrimental effects.
Such cases as Microsoft forcing manufacturers to purchase overpriced software bundles (Windows is notoriously inefficient, garbage programming, and anyone who thinks it's coded well is as ignorant as Apple freaks. 
) get complicated because of the particulars of the software industry and the necessity of compatibility in being functional for most any purpose.
So yeah I'm against monopolies. But I'm also against the sort of laws that Washington is capable of making today, which are incapable of managing the particulars of industries without causing massive harm. Against monopolies and supportive of appropriate and measured government action where appropriate, but skeptical of government action--as we all should be.
>>Times, demographics, and needs change. Adapt.<<
That's the same explanation progressives give for our "inevitable" move to socialism. It's based upon false premises, but that doesn't stop people from making any number of claims with this explanation. People are perfectly capable of adapting on their own. They've done so for millions of years. They don't suddenly need you and your bright ideas to protect them from themselves. I looked it up. They really don't.
It is true that many things have changed. And there have been abuses left unchecked in the past that I'm not arguing should be left unchecked again. But this is a legitimate basis for new, smarter laws and law enforcement. People aren't inherently more of babies as you argue. They're only that way if that is what you actively make them. I agree that we should have laws and law enforcement that should actually serve us and not serve the interest of established business in stifling innovation by massively increasing start-up costs. I do not agree that, because the world's population has grown, they're inherently babies.
>>People are, at their core, semi-retarded animals with no concept of the greater good.<<
Which is precisely why it is bad to give these semi-retarded animals massive power over one another. Without massive government (increasing the cost of living and lowering the standard of living for everyone as a bonus), no semi-retarded animal can do monumental harm to his fellow man. Thank you for making my point for me. Everyone deserves all the best things they can attain for themselves in this world. (Not at the expense of wronging others. I'm a fan of reasonable laws and law enforcement.) It only hurts everyone to take what they attain for themselves. Well balanced children are taught not to take things that are not theirs. Now if only we could educate some adults and make them more well balanced people, less untaught children.
Edit: In case it's over anyone's head, all of this is exactly why [a small part of, anyway] the U.S. Constitution was written the way it was, with limitations of powers and checks and balances. The Founders of the United States of America didn't limit the power of the government they were creating because they couldn't have abused unlimited power and increased their wealth: They limited its power because they were educated men actually acting in the best interests of their people. They were scared shitless and knew that what they were doing was going to be very important for a lot of people for a long time, if they succeeded. They crafted this document with all of the abuses of their present world and knowledge of history in mind. A knowledge that isn't as spotty and willfully ignorant as the knowledge of many supposedly learned men today.
I think creating the government of a people that rose from a collection of immigrants to the sole superpower on planet Earth was a success. While I'm all about catching abuses that weren't always caught in the past, I think an educated man must be capable of looking at the success of the US Constitution and learning from it. I believe that to attack such a document as unjust because it doesn't give government the power to enforce "social justice" without being able to learn anything from it is rather ignorant. The US constitution doesn't allow the government to claim ownership of everything and everyone, which is what "social justice" requires of a government. I believe this was a good decision. Enjoy being a subject. I enjoy being a citizen.
People used to function with barely any government interference in their lives. And government didn't have to tell them how to survive. We never died out.
pees in the closet
[]
[]
>>got some money? go to a private doctor and try or luck<<
That everyone is forced to pay for everyone else's inferior healthcare, including viagra and abortions and other things that many do not care to pay for, reduces their ability to purchase superior care. This is the way in which socialized medicine hurts the poor, literally.
>>There are accidents, lifestyle choices and violent crime everywhere.<<
I don't care to read sources in support of your claim that accidents, lifestyle choice, and violent crime and their effects on life expectancy are uniform across the globe, as you presume in attributing life expectancy variations purely to healthcare quality. And that's even if they were uniformly reported and uniformly used in calculating life expectancy. Which they are not. Such a claim doesn't even have any face validity.
had white horses, and ladies by the score
often wakes up in a cold sweat, screaming HELP, MY BLANKET IS CHASING ME AND IT'S SCARY
The CIA doesn't send people to your local doctors' offices to obtain its numbers. It relies on nations' counting practices and reporting. It has already been pointed out that this is not uniform.
>>the only time surgery can be cancelled due to health concerns is if the risk of death outweighs the gain in the quality of life.<<
I would just love if some asshole in a suit could make that decision for me. God forbid I be responsible for making decisions regarding my life. Anyone who sees nothing wrong with this is a pansy and should go suck on a pacifier: nobody wants a piece of their lack of intellect.
>>Still if non emergency surgery would kill someone in the US would they still insist on surgery?<<
There is no "they." In the USA you're not treated as a child all your life and are free to make stupid decisions. And life-saving ones. You're not overtaxed to provide abortions and viagra then denied the latest treatments because they're unapproved.
>>This still doesnt answer the crux of the issue, if our health service is so bad in UK and Canada, why are both our life expectancy ratings significantly above the USA as rated by the CIA world factbook and the United Nations?<<
As Mr. Balsz has been kind enough to point out: "Dunno what your health care system has to do with violent crime, road accidents and our lifestyle choices, which are our main killers." It is certainly not because your healthcare is superior. Nobody seriously makes that claim. It would be laughable.
>>Ever wondered why circumcision is all but compulsory in the USA, but not in the UK?<<
All but compulsory? Wow. You must look at a lot of dicks. But seriously, we don't talk about or care about dick nearly as much as you. Circumcision isn't something we talk about. Do what you want with your kids' genitals. Woah. I meant only as far as circumcision is concerned.
This has become rather silly.
is a dinogator
Imperial Forum → Posts by V. Kemp
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.