[urbanrealtor]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.

[urbanrealtor]

I don’t think health care is a right.
However, basic survival-oriented and educational public goods are a practical necessity in non-poor countries.
To that extent, it is a government responsibility.
I also think that increasing the efficiency of the distribution of public goods is a responsibility.
Right now we have universal health care.
Anybody showing up at an ER in the US gets treated regardless of income.
That is universal, often publicly subsidized, and very inefficient.
People in this country can’t really starve either.
The only people who starve here are people who have some true disability (like mental illness) or actually desire to starve (like supermodels).
We just make it uncomfortable to live on the dole (fill out these 6 forms then stand in a line for a an hour and then you get 2 loaves of bread and a brick of cheese).
Just as there is no real option for letting poor people starve, there is no real option for letting injured and sick people die for lack of cash.

Therefore, this is really about the following issues:
-how to minimize outlays from government and institutions currently providing that inefficient health care (thus improving the bottom line of hospitals, government entities, and other payers)
-about how to minimize personal bankruptcies (or just general financial burden) associated with insufficient coverage (thus improving global consumer effective demand)
-giving US companies a comparative advantage over their foreign competitors who enjoy more efficient and/or subsidized healthcare (part, though only part, of the reason our companies are currently seeing waning competitiveness)

Also, to Allan’s concern about authoritarianism in the form of required insurance:

1: How is representative democratic legislation “authoritarian”?
2: How is this different from being required to pay unemployment insurance (or having that as an employer-cost associated with you) or paying retirement insurance (social security)?

The purpose of any government is the welfare of its people and right now the inefficiencies in US healthcare have created a self-reinforcing economic burden upon the country. I think that, as a fix, this is an acceptable option.

[urbanrealtor]

I don’t think health care is a right.
However, basic survival-oriented and educational public goods are a practical necessity in non-poor countries.
To that extent, it is a government responsibility.
I also think that increasing the efficiency of the distribution of public goods is a responsibility.
Right now we have universal health care.
Anybody showing up at an ER in the US gets treated regardless of income.
That is universal, often publicly subsidized, and very inefficient.
People in this country can’t really starve either.
The only people who starve here are people who have some true disability (like mental illness) or actually desire to starve (like supermodels).
We just make it uncomfortable to live on the dole (fill out these 6 forms then stand in a line for a an hour and then you get 2 loaves of bread and a brick of cheese).
Just as there is no real option for letting poor people starve, there is no real option for letting injured and sick people die for lack of cash.

Therefore, this is really about the following issues:
-how to minimize outlays from government and institutions currently providing that inefficient health care (thus improving the bottom line of hospitals, government entities, and other payers)
-about how to minimize personal bankruptcies (or just general financial burden) associated with insufficient coverage (thus improving global consumer effective demand)
-giving US companies a comparative advantage over their foreign competitors who enjoy more efficient and/or subsidized healthcare (part, though only part, of the reason our companies are currently seeing waning competitiveness)

Also, to Allan’s concern about authoritarianism in the form of required insurance:

1: How is representative democratic legislation “authoritarian”?
2: How is this different from being required to pay unemployment insurance (or having that as an employer-cost associated with you) or paying retirement insurance (social security)?

The purpose of any government is the welfare of its people and right now the inefficiencies in US healthcare have created a self-reinforcing economic burden upon the country. I think that, as a fix, this is an acceptable option.

[urbanrealtor]

I don’t think health care is a right.
However, basic survival-oriented and educational public goods are a practical necessity in non-poor countries.
To that extent, it is a government responsibility.
I also think that increasing the efficiency of the distribution of public goods is a responsibility.
Right now we have universal health care.
Anybody showing up at an ER in the US gets treated regardless of income.
That is universal, often publicly subsidized, and very inefficient.
People in this country can’t really starve either.
The only people who starve here are people who have some true disability (like mental illness) or actually desire to starve (like supermodels).
We just make it uncomfortable to live on the dole (fill out these 6 forms then stand in a line for a an hour and then you get 2 loaves of bread and a brick of cheese).
Just as there is no real option for letting poor people starve, there is no real option for letting injured and sick people die for lack of cash.

Therefore, this is really about the following issues:
-how to minimize outlays from government and institutions currently providing that inefficient health care (thus improving the bottom line of hospitals, government entities, and other payers)
-about how to minimize personal bankruptcies (or just general financial burden) associated with insufficient coverage (thus improving global consumer effective demand)
-giving US companies a comparative advantage over their foreign competitors who enjoy more efficient and/or subsidized healthcare (part, though only part, of the reason our companies are currently seeing waning competitiveness)

Also, to Allan’s concern about authoritarianism in the form of required insurance:

1: How is representative democratic legislation “authoritarian”?
2: How is this different from being required to pay unemployment insurance (or having that as an employer-cost associated with you) or paying retirement insurance (social security)?

The purpose of any government is the welfare of its people and right now the inefficiencies in US healthcare have created a self-reinforcing economic burden upon the country. I think that, as a fix, this is an acceptable option.

[urbanrealtor]

I don’t think health care is a right.
However, basic survival-oriented and educational public goods are a practical necessity in non-poor countries.
To that extent, it is a government responsibility.
I also think that increasing the efficiency of the distribution of public goods is a responsibility.
Right now we have universal health care.
Anybody showing up at an ER in the US gets treated regardless of income.
That is universal, often publicly subsidized, and very inefficient.
People in this country can’t really starve either.
The only people who starve here are people who have some true disability (like mental illness) or actually desire to starve (like supermodels).
We just make it uncomfortable to live on the dole (fill out these 6 forms then stand in a line for a an hour and then you get 2 loaves of bread and a brick of cheese).
Just as there is no real option for letting poor people starve, there is no real option for letting injured and sick people die for lack of cash.

Therefore, this is really about the following issues:
-how to minimize outlays from government and institutions currently providing that inefficient health care (thus improving the bottom line of hospitals, government entities, and other payers)
-about how to minimize personal bankruptcies (or just general financial burden) associated with insufficient coverage (thus improving global consumer effective demand)
-giving US companies a comparative advantage over their foreign competitors who enjoy more efficient and/or subsidized healthcare (part, though only part, of the reason our companies are currently seeing waning competitiveness)

Also, to Allan’s concern about authoritarianism in the form of required insurance:

1: How is representative democratic legislation “authoritarian”?
2: How is this different from being required to pay unemployment insurance (or having that as an employer-cost associated with you) or paying retirement insurance (social security)?

The purpose of any government is the welfare of its people and right now the inefficiencies in US healthcare have created a self-reinforcing economic burden upon the country. I think that, as a fix, this is an acceptable option.

[urbanrealtor]

I don’t think health care is a right.
However, basic survival-oriented and educational public goods are a practical necessity in non-poor countries.
To that extent, it is a government responsibility.
I also think that increasing the efficiency of the distribution of public goods is a responsibility.
Right now we have universal health care.
Anybody showing up at an ER in the US gets treated regardless of income.
That is universal, often publicly subsidized, and very inefficient.
People in this country can’t really starve either.
The only people who starve here are people who have some true disability (like mental illness) or actually desire to starve (like supermodels).
We just make it uncomfortable to live on the dole (fill out these 6 forms then stand in a line for a an hour and then you get 2 loaves of bread and a brick of cheese).
Just as there is no real option for letting poor people starve, there is no real option for letting injured and sick people die for lack of cash.

Therefore, this is really about the following issues:
-how to minimize outlays from government and institutions currently providing that inefficient health care (thus improving the bottom line of hospitals, government entities, and other payers)
-about how to minimize personal bankruptcies (or just general financial burden) associated with insufficient coverage (thus improving global consumer effective demand)
-giving US companies a comparative advantage over their foreign competitors who enjoy more efficient and/or subsidized healthcare (part, though only part, of the reason our companies are currently seeing waning competitiveness)

Also, to Allan’s concern about authoritarianism in the form of required insurance:

1: How is representative democratic legislation “authoritarian”?
2: How is this different from being required to pay unemployment insurance (or having that as an employer-cost associated with you) or paying retirement insurance (social security)?

The purpose of any government is the welfare of its people and right now the inefficiencies in US healthcare have created a self-reinforcing economic burden upon the country. I think that, as a fix, this is an acceptable option.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=barnaby33]Ah TG and Urban, I’ve seen the light. Send me your one armed Belgian midgets, I’m open to that at last!
Josh[/quote]

Christ Josh.

It always a choice with you between one-armed Belgian midgets or someone who fill out your application correctly.

That’s a crappy set of options and a crappy way of looking at the world.

Having high standards is fine but between your checklist and your personality, my suspicion is that there is more keeping you lonely than your “high standards”.

Its easy to fuck anyone. But actually clicking with someone is much harder. I figure for me its like 1-5% of the population (and that is probably an overestimate). Any two people already have some built in filter software that weeds out a large amount of the social trash. Adding too many filters to that is a recipe for perpetual disappointment.

Note:
I should probably make clear that when I refer to your personality, I mean no derision. Merely that anyone’s personality (not yours personally)filters out some amount of people they interact with. (eg: upon moving to San Diego, I was shocked at how many hotties I found too insipid and dumb for conversation beyond monosyllabic grunts).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=barnaby33]Ah TG and Urban, I’ve seen the light. Send me your one armed Belgian midgets, I’m open to that at last!
Josh[/quote]

Christ Josh.

It always a choice with you between one-armed Belgian midgets or someone who fill out your application correctly.

That’s a crappy set of options and a crappy way of looking at the world.

Having high standards is fine but between your checklist and your personality, my suspicion is that there is more keeping you lonely than your “high standards”.

Its easy to fuck anyone. But actually clicking with someone is much harder. I figure for me its like 1-5% of the population (and that is probably an overestimate). Any two people already have some built in filter software that weeds out a large amount of the social trash. Adding too many filters to that is a recipe for perpetual disappointment.

Note:
I should probably make clear that when I refer to your personality, I mean no derision. Merely that anyone’s personality (not yours personally)filters out some amount of people they interact with. (eg: upon moving to San Diego, I was shocked at how many hotties I found too insipid and dumb for conversation beyond monosyllabic grunts).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=barnaby33]Ah TG and Urban, I’ve seen the light. Send me your one armed Belgian midgets, I’m open to that at last!
Josh[/quote]

Christ Josh.

It always a choice with you between one-armed Belgian midgets or someone who fill out your application correctly.

That’s a crappy set of options and a crappy way of looking at the world.

Having high standards is fine but between your checklist and your personality, my suspicion is that there is more keeping you lonely than your “high standards”.

Its easy to fuck anyone. But actually clicking with someone is much harder. I figure for me its like 1-5% of the population (and that is probably an overestimate). Any two people already have some built in filter software that weeds out a large amount of the social trash. Adding too many filters to that is a recipe for perpetual disappointment.

Note:
I should probably make clear that when I refer to your personality, I mean no derision. Merely that anyone’s personality (not yours personally)filters out some amount of people they interact with. (eg: upon moving to San Diego, I was shocked at how many hotties I found too insipid and dumb for conversation beyond monosyllabic grunts).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=barnaby33]Ah TG and Urban, I’ve seen the light. Send me your one armed Belgian midgets, I’m open to that at last!
Josh[/quote]

Christ Josh.

It always a choice with you between one-armed Belgian midgets or someone who fill out your application correctly.

That’s a crappy set of options and a crappy way of looking at the world.

Having high standards is fine but between your checklist and your personality, my suspicion is that there is more keeping you lonely than your “high standards”.

Its easy to fuck anyone. But actually clicking with someone is much harder. I figure for me its like 1-5% of the population (and that is probably an overestimate). Any two people already have some built in filter software that weeds out a large amount of the social trash. Adding too many filters to that is a recipe for perpetual disappointment.

Note:
I should probably make clear that when I refer to your personality, I mean no derision. Merely that anyone’s personality (not yours personally)filters out some amount of people they interact with. (eg: upon moving to San Diego, I was shocked at how many hotties I found too insipid and dumb for conversation beyond monosyllabic grunts).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=barnaby33]Ah TG and Urban, I’ve seen the light. Send me your one armed Belgian midgets, I’m open to that at last!
Josh[/quote]

Christ Josh.

It always a choice with you between one-armed Belgian midgets or someone who fill out your application correctly.

That’s a crappy set of options and a crappy way of looking at the world.

Having high standards is fine but between your checklist and your personality, my suspicion is that there is more keeping you lonely than your “high standards”.

Its easy to fuck anyone. But actually clicking with someone is much harder. I figure for me its like 1-5% of the population (and that is probably an overestimate). Any two people already have some built in filter software that weeds out a large amount of the social trash. Adding too many filters to that is a recipe for perpetual disappointment.

Note:
I should probably make clear that when I refer to your personality, I mean no derision. Merely that anyone’s personality (not yours personally)filters out some amount of people they interact with. (eg: upon moving to San Diego, I was shocked at how many hotties I found too insipid and dumb for conversation beyond monosyllabic grunts).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Casca]

No, YOU don’t WANT the cities to look that way. You’re just one of the useful idiots who votes for economic slavery. That other cities have not reached Detroit’s economic meltdown yet, is not an argument. If wealth is portable, it will flee from economic persecution. Hell, you don’t even know the difference between communism & socialism. Go look up GOSPlan, then see if you can connect at least two dots.[/quote]

Where would the people and the wealth go?
People and their money follow stability and investment, not tea parties.
Atlas Shrugged was a dumb premise for a story.
The nature of capitalism is that captains of industry are interchangeable.
If a bunch of CEO’s quit and left to the mountains, not only would it not destroy the economy, nobody would care.
It is just as dumb of a premise as your silly argument.
Economic meltdowns happen for a lot of reasons.
Most (though not all) of the Detroit meltdown is confined to the city itself.
Flight resulting in loss of capital and tax base can have a snowball effect especially if enough bedroom communities exist in reasonable proximity to create a wealth donut.
Gas crises, economic changes, introduction of large outside population, and cheap auto transport(ironically) were factors here.

Every city I cited is better off now than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

The argument that they are just at the early stages of a Detroit-esque collapse cannot hold.

The primary difference at long view historical and philosophical level between Communism and Socialism is the tolerance of religion.
The primary bifurcation in the contemporary (post wwii) system is the level of government economic planning (eg: the difference between Sweden and Cuba).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Casca]

No, YOU don’t WANT the cities to look that way. You’re just one of the useful idiots who votes for economic slavery. That other cities have not reached Detroit’s economic meltdown yet, is not an argument. If wealth is portable, it will flee from economic persecution. Hell, you don’t even know the difference between communism & socialism. Go look up GOSPlan, then see if you can connect at least two dots.[/quote]

Where would the people and the wealth go?
People and their money follow stability and investment, not tea parties.
Atlas Shrugged was a dumb premise for a story.
The nature of capitalism is that captains of industry are interchangeable.
If a bunch of CEO’s quit and left to the mountains, not only would it not destroy the economy, nobody would care.
It is just as dumb of a premise as your silly argument.
Economic meltdowns happen for a lot of reasons.
Most (though not all) of the Detroit meltdown is confined to the city itself.
Flight resulting in loss of capital and tax base can have a snowball effect especially if enough bedroom communities exist in reasonable proximity to create a wealth donut.
Gas crises, economic changes, introduction of large outside population, and cheap auto transport(ironically) were factors here.

Every city I cited is better off now than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

The argument that they are just at the early stages of a Detroit-esque collapse cannot hold.

The primary difference at long view historical and philosophical level between Communism and Socialism is the tolerance of religion.
The primary bifurcation in the contemporary (post wwii) system is the level of government economic planning (eg: the difference between Sweden and Cuba).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Casca]

No, YOU don’t WANT the cities to look that way. You’re just one of the useful idiots who votes for economic slavery. That other cities have not reached Detroit’s economic meltdown yet, is not an argument. If wealth is portable, it will flee from economic persecution. Hell, you don’t even know the difference between communism & socialism. Go look up GOSPlan, then see if you can connect at least two dots.[/quote]

Where would the people and the wealth go?
People and their money follow stability and investment, not tea parties.
Atlas Shrugged was a dumb premise for a story.
The nature of capitalism is that captains of industry are interchangeable.
If a bunch of CEO’s quit and left to the mountains, not only would it not destroy the economy, nobody would care.
It is just as dumb of a premise as your silly argument.
Economic meltdowns happen for a lot of reasons.
Most (though not all) of the Detroit meltdown is confined to the city itself.
Flight resulting in loss of capital and tax base can have a snowball effect especially if enough bedroom communities exist in reasonable proximity to create a wealth donut.
Gas crises, economic changes, introduction of large outside population, and cheap auto transport(ironically) were factors here.

Every city I cited is better off now than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

The argument that they are just at the early stages of a Detroit-esque collapse cannot hold.

The primary difference at long view historical and philosophical level between Communism and Socialism is the tolerance of religion.
The primary bifurcation in the contemporary (post wwii) system is the level of government economic planning (eg: the difference between Sweden and Cuba).

[Author]

Posts