More insane rebuttles from Libs

[JXL78]

Instead of bumping the older thread I wanted more eyes on this again...just shocked...
refering to this older thread btw... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=217806

I used a lot of your responses from the first thread...what he's replying to here...

first comes from a guy in Canada who loves his health care...




here, when ever i say 'fuck' in this thread, just imagine john malkovich in burn after reading:

YouTube - Burn After Reading - John Malkovich (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7CR8WkUi-4)

now.
once again, with respect sir you're making totally ridiculous distortions here about socialism. what you're describing in some sort of extreme Stalinist communism. you're saying totally ridiculous things.

you missed the point. England has many solutions for the problems that you're suggesting without being an fantasy "socialist utopia". you speak as if i live in some sort of dream world when i talk about socialism, but this shit is ubiquitous. Canada, the UK, and France are not the type of socialist countries that you're describing. we are happy, free people who enjoy a very high standard of living. We can do what we want and start businesses. I'm a fucking business owner for god's sake. I value personal development and I'm not stopping for shit. This fantasy you have where you can't be 'free' in countries like Canada and the UK because some sort of oppressive government force is keeping you down is total fucking bullshit. it doesn't exist in the countries that the US would do well to role model.replying to something I said The simple fact is. People have a right to keep the fruits of their own labor.Once again he is from Canada.


YouTube - George Carlin - Rights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F1Lq1uFcAE)

two things:
1. "the right"? really? is this part of nature? we created that shit.. AND -- on what moral basis did we create that "right"? they are, of course, suggestive of a certain level of moral development, and quite frankly we can probably do better. honestly, the bill of rights? I'm not fucking impressed. that's right. we can do much better.
2. I completely think people should have the right to profit from their work and grow and become more wealthy. do you fucking hear what I'm saying?? once again, i'm not a communist. I am a proponent of certain socialist programs, most of which are already proven and workingI say...where does it stop? Do you think money grows on trees?


no... i think it stops when motherfuckers like you and I who have brains make goddamn decisions about what is reasonable and what isn't.. that's why this shit needs to come from a higher moral center-- one that isn't black and white and retarded. let me sound conservative here. I'm more than happy to pay higher taxes to provide reasonable health care for everyone. I am NOT in favor, however, of financially supporting some poor lazy motherfucking BUM who isn't interested in working.. fuck him, he can die with a dick in his mouth (haha). I WILL however pay taxes for his therapy and education.. but we already do that in Canada, and once again, my living standard is awesome. there are a lot of socialist programs that work great and we've got a budget for. we draw the line somewhere we choose consciously, because we're not fucking retarded.I used what someone here said...then he says...


your questions..

Well, i don't need to answer the first one, because like i said, all of the social programs that i'm really supportive of have already been implemented in other countries and work very well. this aint new ground. you peeps in the US pay tax just like us here in Canada, we just spend it on more socialist programs. there's BARELY a difference as it is for god's sake! what about your roads, for fuck sakes? and your firemen? anyway. when you dont pay your tax in the US, there are lots of processes for dealing with that, and I see no reason that they need to change. if anything, they can become a lot more tactful, probably. once again, the only reason you asked me that question is because you think i'm a fucking communist. I'm not. Do I look like robin hood to you? no, i dont. fuck him. he's an ugly stupid fucking asshole.I say...there is no love at the point of a gun...


excuse me, but holding your loved ones up to a higher moral ideal is HUGELY about love. "No jimmy, I'm not going to let you keep that shit you stole from mrs. jenkins, because doing things solely for your own benefit isn't moral" or "no jimmy, it isn't okay to hire sweat shop workers just because it's cheep and legal" I dont give a shit if jimmy doesn't understand, and he just wants to keep what he "earned"

to the person who's only vantage point is himself, and who sees the world as a dogpile, then he should grow, even if it's painful in the short term. that IS love -- but it's fatherly love.I use what someone here said...
"Why would any self-professed free thinker submit himself to the whims of a body collective?"

the reply...


because anyone who can call himself enlightened (that's right fuckers, I'm going to claim that) understands how the individual is integrated into the collective without losing his individuality. without losing his individuality -- that's the whole holy-fuck important point here. if i don't have freedom to expand myself on an INDIVIDUAL basis, then you don't even HAVE a collective - you've got a bunch of oppressed fuckers in a tyrannical state. any collective that's worth a shit is made out of happy healthy prosperous individuals, working together.

individuals, working together -- you know, like a fuckin orgy.

these ideals of mine have nothing to do with sacrifice. I link to Stossel health care videos...


one more thing-- I'll watch those videos for you, just cuz you asked.

but seriously. starting with "animals in canada get far better care than human beings"

what kind of a fucking thing to say on tv is that? that's so intellectually BANKRUPT that it sends up massive red flags. it's straight up emotional communication and CERTAINLY has no factual or intellectual basis. I mean it almost belongs in Idiocracy. they might as well say "people in FAGnada all have to suck doctor dick to get healthcare"

YouTube - idiocracy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acUix6Mz7kY&feature=player_embedded)

Now more from someone new who chimed in, being a little more serious this time...


With that said, you have to look at each issue with out caring whose side you would end up on. For health care you have to ask yourself what are the upsides and downsides to each position, and why we even have health care providers in the first place.

The reason we have health care providers is because people wanted a safety blanket in case something bad happened so they wouldn't be bankrupted by the medical bills. The only other option was to put away money into a savings account, a "rainy day fund" in case something happened. The thing is people in a capitalist society suck at saving money because they are supposed to be using that money. Because of this need insurance company's popped up to fill the need. They were able to make lots of money off the money they were given because they only had to pay out to a select few and were able to keep whatever wasn't used.

The argument for a government based health care system;
A government based health care system gets money from every tax payer creating a HUGE reserve of money. The larger the reserve the less likely you are to have the money run out when people start needing it. The reserve can also make interest helping pay back some of the debt we have. It would also serve as the low bar for other health care providers, because why would you get more coverage unless your getting more rewards. If something isn't covered by the gov plan then free market would anyways be there to pick up the slack. With the Gov plan the free market cant pull some of the shit it can now. They would have to cover things not covered by the gov plan and couldn't drop you for preexisting conditions.

So what do you think are the good things of keeping things the way they are now?Should I give up? lol I want to hear more of what people think here...I thought it was pretty funny. One of the funnier liberals I've come across actually...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Personally, I think if you read Human Action you can obliterate all their stances. For one, the last post he has no understanding whatsoever of moral hazard. If people believe they are receiving something for free; that is taxation is an indirect out of the eye form of theft -- those people are more likely to use the scarce resources quickly and inefficiently. They have no incentive not to. The converse of that is true. This is why you see rationing, worse care, waiting lines, shortfalls of equipment, doctors, nurses, supplies, etc.

When one thinks of economics you have to always presume first and foremost that we live in a world of scarce resources. People make decisions based on the scarcity of resources. When the free-market is left to it's devices, it uses the tool of prices to control the outgoing, and incoming supply of those scarce resources. When you abdicate that control mechanism -- pricing -- which is essential to all economics (it is an immutable law), you will wind up with a defunct system. The people in the free-market will only use such resources as they see fit. That is, the cost to benefit that each individual makes when deciding to purchase goods, use services, and otherwise conduct commerce in the market place. When you take that away, and people have no adverse incentive, then those scarce resources will be used up frivousily and quickly. This is self-evident, and is an axiomatic economic law.

For the rest, you can argue based on morality, ethics, Natural Law. Use Rothbards Ethics of Liberty, or other crescendo works like Road to Serfdom to highlight the ineptness of socialism. In short, it is the tragedy of the commons. When he brings up American socialism, juxtapose the destruction it wrecks by using Economics in One Lesson. Secondly, expand upon that by tying it in to Government debt (slavery), Central Banking (Fiat Monetary Policy), etc. Ask him, if he believes it is moral to steal from the future, by paying for programs today. That is what he is doing. A good recap of this Hamiltonian-Mercantilist, thought can be found within The Curse of Hamilton by Di'Lorenzo.

Really, it is easy to deconstruct and destroy every thing they bring up. It only takes a bit of reading and understanding. Good luck!

[angelatc]

The thing is people in a capitalist society suck at saving money because they are supposed to be using that money

He's actually right about that. I'm looking for something I read on that, but accidently hit "Save" instead of Go Advanced. :)

ETA - I can't find it. But it mentioned that the more socialist the country, the less people saved. That's partly because they're poorer, and partially because free markets are force people into economic self-sufficiency. Even property rights come into play, because we Americans tend to use our property as a form of savings. Think "Stock market" and "real estate."

Did you read Thomas Sowell's series? Part 2 is here, (http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/11/04/the_costs_of_medical_care_part_ii?page=full&comments=true) and you can find part 1 and maybe 3 from that.

It's nice that he's a business owner. Too bad he doesn't believe that doctors should have the same freedoms that he has.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

He's actually right about that. I'm looking for something I read on that, but accidently hit "Save" instead of Go Advanced. :)

ETA - I can't find it. But it mentioned that the more socialist the country, the less people saved. That's partly because they're poorer, and partially because free markets are force people into economic self-sufficiency. Even property rights come into play, because we Americans tend to use our property as a form of savings. Think "Stock market" and "real estate."

Did you read Thomas Sowell's series? Part 2 is here, (http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/11/04/the_costs_of_medical_care_part_ii?page=full&comments=true) and you can find part 1 and maybe 3 from that.

It's nice that he's a business owner. Too bad he doesn't believe that doctors should have the same freedoms that he has.

Actually he's wrong. People don't save now because interest rates have been at like 1% for the past decade ++. A true free-market, interest rates would be much higher right now, and that would incentivize people to save. He has no idea what the hell he's talking about.

[angelatc]

Actually he's wrong. People don't save now because interest rates have been at like 1% for the past decade ++. A true free-market, interest rates would be much higher right now, and that would incentivize people to save. He has no idea what the hell he's talking about.

Yeah, I was quoting an economics professor. They're always wrong about economics. ANd of course, you're always right about everything. Facts are always shite when put up against theory....

Apparently you're defining "savings" as a savings account, while I clearly indicated that the money follows the yield and included stocks and real estate in the equation.

In 2006, 2007 and 2008 the developing world’s savings was around 33% of its GDP. Ours was negative.

[ClayTrainor]

Yeah, I was quoting an economics professor. They're always wrong about economics.

In my experience, this is actually a very true statement, though obviously a bit exaggerated :o

My uncle is a bank manager, and used to teach economics in university. He's a hardcore Keynesian, and wrong about just about everything in terms of economics, imo. He obviously has a solid understanding of some theories, but most of them involve a mechanism of forceful control, which he endorses.

[angelatc]

In my experience, this is actually a very true statement, though obviously a bit exaggerated :o

My uncle is a bank manager, and used to teach economics in university. He's a hardcore Keynesian, and wrong about just about everything in terms of economics, imo. He obviously has a solid understanding of some theories, but most of them involve a mechanism of forceful control, which he endorses.

:rolleyes:

One of us isn't debating theory. One of us is looking at statistics, in order to help the OP develop an argument.

Two of us are here because they are always right about everything.

[ClayTrainor]

:rolleyes:

University Economics professors are leading providers of the propaganda against our movement, in my opinion. You obviously disagree. They're worse than the media, in terms of the intellectual battle we face. Have you ever heard the media say "99% of economists agree" about somethign related to politics, when our movement and the Austrian School clearly don't agree?

[angelatc]

This fantasy you have where you can't be 'free' in countries like Canada and the UK because some sort of oppressive government force is keeping you down is total fucking bullshit.

NOw that's easily disputed. We do better in treating cancers, the waiting list for tests that we consider routine are non-existant here.

ANd - we don't want to be Canadian.

[angelatc]

University Economics professors are leading providers of the propaganda against our movement, in my opinion. You obviously disagree. They're worse than the media, in terms of the intellectual battle we face. Have you ever heard the media say "99% of economists agree" about somethign related to politics, when our movement and the Austrian School clearly don't agree?

Just go away and stop hijacking yet another thread.

[ClayTrainor]

One of us isn't debating theory. One of us is looking at statistics, in order to help the OP develop an argument.

The news also likes to throw around statistics and tell us what they mean.

Austrian econ disciple presented a cogent, respectful disagreement with you, and this was your sarcastic and overly defensive response.



Yeah, I was quoting an economics professor. They're always wrong about economics. ANd of course, you're always right about everything.

I sense some insecurity and frustration... :o



Two of us are here because they are always right about everything.

Austrian jumped in with a reasonable and logical response, and you're the one who responds with negativity and an insulting tone. He's reasoning with you, which will give the OP better insight into the situation.

Good luck with your approach.

[ClayTrainor]

Just go away and stop hijacking yet another thread.

So much anger in you... I will let you be, and perhaps block you so we don't encounter each other any more. There is no value in our relationship.

[ClayTrainor]

To the OP:

Here's an argument i used on another forum, based on a previous experience of mine. Perhaps it can help you out, I was using a similar tone as your first friend :D


As a Canadian, i fucking hate socialized health care!

I had strep throat a few weeks ago, and tried to get an appointment with my family doctor, and he was booked up for over a month. I went to a walk-in clinic, and waited for about 3 hours, in an over-crowded room full of sick people. Finally, after the 3 hours had passed, a stressed-out over worked doctor was finally able to see me, for about 5 minutes and give me some government regulated pills. I have had Strep before and already knew what medication i needed, so seeing the doctor was just something my government essentially forces me to do, in order to get ahold of regulated drugs.

In Socialism, when you are sick and need medication:

You wait, you wait and you wait... and then you get your government regulated drug, for $60+ (drugs are not free in Canada)

Compare that to our already existing free markets

You get a headache, you go to walmart and buy tylenol for $5. This takes you about 5 minutes, provided you live near a walmart. Cheap, fast, and you get what you need, so long as the government hasn't regulated it away.



We need as few regulations as possible, so we can have the walmart of hospitals!

Why can i go to walmart and get medication for my headache in 5 minutes for $5, yet when i have a fairly serious illness, i have to wait and wait and then pay ever-increasing amounts for my government regulated bullshit?

On this point, your 2nd friend made.


The thing is people in a capitalist society suck at saving money because they are supposed to be using that money

He's implying that spending is they key aspect of capitalism, when it is not. He probably views capitalism as "profit" not "private property". You should try to use socratic questioning to fix this Fallacy, before challenging his statistics and historical examples. You need to attack the root of their principles, not necessarily the specifics of their arguments :)

The purpose of capitalism is private ownership of property and your earnings. The basis of capitalism is savings, not money. Money itself, is only a representation of capital and savings. Money as it exists today (FIAT Paper), would not be worth anything in a free-market capitalist economy. Capitalism to truly exist must essentially be a resource based economy, with 100% reserves.

Savings, private property and voluntary trade are most effectively accomplished with private property, not public property.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yeah, I was quoting an economics professor. They're always wrong about economics. ANd of course, you're always right about everything. Facts are always shite when put up against theory....

Apparently you're defining "savings" as a savings account, while I clearly indicated that the money follows the yield and included stocks and real estate in the equation.

In 2006, 2007 and 2008 the developing world’s savings was around 33% of its GDP. Ours was negative.

Yes, because these theories, and yes, facts, I just make up out of the blue. Irregardless that the economists of our time were the ones to come up with these. No, I don't read, I just spout. Holy fuck.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yeah, I was quoting an economics professor. They're always wrong about economics. ANd of course, you're always right about everything. Facts are always shite when put up against theory....

Apparently you're defining "savings" as a savings account, while I clearly indicated that the money follows the yield and included stocks and real estate in the equation.

In 2006, 2007 and 2008 the developing world’s savings was around 33% of its GDP. Ours was negative.

How do you think loans get made to purchase houses? Do you not believe it is directly tied to the interest rate? What do you think caused the housing bubble in the first place? Misallocation of resources?

Capitalism isn't about profligate spending. In fact, if it was, then we wouldn't have built the infrastructure that we had prior to all the State intervention in the market place. You have no valid historical example, nor do you have any cognizant human nature example. Sure, some people don't save, but many do. When banks take the incentive away to save, then you might as well spend spend spend, because you're not earning anything by holding on to your money. This is called time preference. You give the bank your money, so they can loan it out, and you earn interest back. In return they charge higher interest to make a profit.

Seriously, are you just going to throw out pejoratives? I thought we were better than that here.....but, I guess you've read pretty much all the Austrian works from Bohm-Bewark Capital Theory, to Keynes deficit spending to Marx and LToV to Rothbard and Man, Economy, State right? OP Don't listen to me, Angela has your answers.

[ClayTrainor]

OP, In terms of this argument


but seriously. starting with "animals in canada get far better care than human beings"

what kind of a fucking thing to say on tv is that? that's so intellectually BANKRUPT that it sends up massive red flags. it's straight up emotional communication and CERTAINLY has no factual or intellectual basis. I mean it almost belongs in Idiocracy. they might as well say "people in FAGnada all have to suck doctor dick to get healthcare"

Ask him this.

Why are there so many black market clinics popping up all over Canada? I usually visit a black market clinic when i'm sick now, so I can attest to their popularity and existence. I like paying for services myself, you always get treated with more respect.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-209048684.html

People going to the vet for minor treatments in Canada is a realistic black market solution, which is occurring constantly.


The vet stories are true, I can tell you for a fact. There are many interesting black market health care examples going on in canada.

[angelatc]

Angela has your answers.


At last we agree on something.

To the OP: Here's another point: http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/11/eu-free-rides-on-drug-research-costs.html
(http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/11/eu-free-rides-on-drug-research-costs.html)


I had a friend who works for Big Pharm. He told me flat out that the cost of Canadian price controls on medicines is built into the prices that Americans pay for the same drugs.

[JXL78]

bump. i love this forum. :)