Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Blunt Amendment DefeatedFollow

#177 Mar 07 2012 at 8:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You don't even understand the meaning of that statement, do you? It's sad, actually.


It's shocking how often those who don't understand something project their own lack of understanding on others. You know how you can tell who's doing this? When one person is able to describe what they're talking about in their own words (like I have, multiple times now), and the other guy just keeps repeating 'you don't understand" over and over.


Quote:
Have you ever voted? Yes? Then you aren't in the state of nature. Do you have family or friends? Then you aren't in the state of nature.


Sigh... A->B is *not* B->A.

The state of nature as described by Locke is intended to illustrate the state of perfect liberty. When you are subject to no authority you have complete liberty. Just because you have left the state of nature and joined in a civil society does not mean you must give up *all* liberty though. He uses the state of nature to illustrate what liberty is, then talks about how it's necessary to give up some of that to form a society, then spends a huge amount of time talking about how the rules and powers and laws of that society should be as minimal as possible and aimed towards preserving as much of that liberty you possessed in a state of nature as possible.


What do you think he's saying when he says this:

Quote:
Sec. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

Sec. 124. The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.



Yes. I'm re-quoting the same thing because apparently you didn't bother to read it. He applies the label "property" to "lives, liberties, and estates". He then says that the only reason to put oneself under government is "the preservation of their property". Since property itself includes liberty, you cannot conclude that when one enters into society and puts oneself under the laws of the government that one must give up their liberty.


It's amazing to me how many people can read that and still fail to understand. It's right there in black and white. It's as clear as can be. You really have to work hard IMO to misinterpret what Locke is saying in that pair of paragraphs. It's just not that complicated at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#178 Mar 07 2012 at 8:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

Locke redefined the state of nature. For one, he did not believe it to be so dark. He believed that the normal social interactions between people were not incompatible with it, but were rather natural in and of themselves. Therefore, the state of nature was a system in which people did not organize themselves, but were also not independent. He also did not believe that the state of nature in a literal sense had ever held--he was not talking about history. A man finds himself in the state of nature if he has not entered into an political* organization, nor acts according to any one.

...

State of Nature, for him, is a statement about your ability to influence, or be influenced by, other people.


It's a bit more than that though. It's about not being under another's authority. You were more correct with your earlier statement about being part of a political organization (and yes, you got the use correct there). But if you actually read Locke instead of just the cliff notes, or having someone give you a brief half section explanation, you'll understand that there are interactions in the state of nature. The state of nature is opposed by the state of war in Locke's definition. In nature, you're not being imposed upon. In war, you are.


He proposes men would naturally prefer to be in the state of nature, but that the threat of the state of war (where someone might force him into slavery) causes him to form those political organizations (most often referred to as commonwealths by Locke, but he uses some other labels as well). He says that by entering into that state men can choose which laws to be bound by and can choose those which give them liberty closest to that in the state of nature, with less risk of those things being lost ("war" doesn't just mean major conflicts obviously. One man beating another and taking his stuff is the "state of war" according to Locke).


This is why he says that the only reason to join such a society is for that protection. We give up some of the liberty we have in the state of nature so as to protect as much as possible from the state of war. The state of war being arbitrary loss of liberty/property.


But there's no point to this if the society you form does not value those liberties. To Locke, that civil society ceases to be civil but becomes a state of war or tyranny.

Quote:
Nearly every human being on the planet is not in the State of Nature. Not because they actively chose to leave it. Not because they couldn't leave it. But because they were born into it, and have never felt the need to leave.

Locke mentions dealings between people in the state of nature, but he does not discuss (iirc) dealings between people in, and people outside, it.



It's not important whether the state exists or can exist, or should exist. As I said earlier, the whole point of him talking about the state of nature and the state of war is to illustrate the concept of liberty so he can argue for why societies should hold most important the preservation of those liberties. When someone argues that since we've agreed to be bound by societies laws that we can't oppose or complain about any infringement of liberty, or even more absurdly that laws passed by a representative government can't infringe your rights, that person simply does not understand the principles of rights and liberties our nation was founded on. Those statements are completely counter to those principles and were both made (more or less) by people in this thread.


Call me crazy, but when someone says that laws don't infringe rights as long as the laws are passed by my own government, I'm going to disagree. Not just a little bit, but a hell of a lot. Because once you adopt that position, you've abandoned any belief in rights or limited government at all.

Locke wrote:
First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community: for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself; and no body has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. A man, as has been proved, cannot subject himself to the arbitrary power of another; and having in the state of nature no arbitrary power over the life, liberty, or possession of another, but only so much as the law of nature gave him for the preservation of himself, and the rest of mankind; this is all he doth, or can give up to the common-wealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the legislative can have no more than this. Their power, in the utmost bounds of it, is limited to the public good of the society. It is a power, that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never* have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects. The obligations of the law of nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have by human laws known penalties annexed to them, to inforce their observation. Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions, must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it.



He's saying that just because you formed into a society and passed laws, you don't get to do more with that than you had in the state of nature. That state did not justify you to take from someone to give to yourself (or a third party), so neither does the government you form have that authority (that's the state of war btw). And no, "public good" does not cover things like health care. Not in the direct form that Obamacare takes. You could argue that it does cover the CDC, or research, and whatnot. But the second you start taking money from people unequally in order to provide direct benefits (also unequally), the government has overstepped its bounds.


This is the same argument against any such directed social programs btw. This is hardly limited to the health care law. There are lots of examples of violations of this. That fact does not and should not be used as a justification for more such infringement though. It should be used as a reason why we need to go in the other direction.

Edited, Mar 7th 2012 6:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#179 Mar 07 2012 at 9:05 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
I find it hilarious how willing you are to put words in Locke's mouth, just to try and get it closer to your own twisted view of things.

Did I say hilarious? I meant sad. Very, very sad.

My favorite good is that you claim public good can't refer to healthcare, when Locke specifically notes that the absolute limit of legislative power is the public good--they have no right to go beyond that, for at that point they are no longer existing in the spirit of the people.

And you think healthcare doesn't fall into that? You don't think helping people afford lifesaving medications isn't a public good?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#180 Mar 07 2012 at 9:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
ThiefX wrote:
blah blah blah FFXI blah yadda yadda blah

Smiley: facepalm
#181 Mar 07 2012 at 9:31 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Nadenu wrote:
ThiefX wrote:
blah blah blah FFXI blah yadda yadda blah

Smiley: facepalm


Hey, that's not fair. He was totally just looking at for his friend. Not for himself, no. He's too cool for that stuff. It was just for his friend, arite?

Smiley: lol
#182 Mar 07 2012 at 9:54 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
FFXI Is a waste of time, yet I still pay them to let me waste that time each month. I am Canadian and they say I am slow eh.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#183ThiefX, Posted: Mar 07 2012 at 11:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes somebody with the username of ThiefX and who has an account on Zam would never admit to playing FFXI. You're a ******* bright one aren't you.
#184 Mar 07 2012 at 11:15 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Ah, the classic, "it's not for me, it's for my friend!" defense. Thiefx, you are the pinnacle of creative thinking.
#185 Mar 07 2012 at 11:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
He only plays it for the articles.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#186 Mar 08 2012 at 8:33 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Guenny wrote:
Ah, the classic, "it's not for me, it's for my friend!" defense. Thiefx, you are the pinnacle of creative thinking.
Maybe once he gets to high school he'll come up with higher quality thoughts. I kind of doubt it, but we have to hope for the best for the future generations.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#187 Mar 08 2012 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
ThiefX wrote:
Quote:
Hey, that's not fair. He was totally just looking at for his friend. Not for himself, no. He's too cool for that stuff. It was just for his friend, arite?


Yes somebody with the username of ThiefX and who has an account on Zam would never admit to playing FFXI. You're a @#%^ing bright one aren't you.


I think I struck a nerve. Smiley: lol
#188 Mar 08 2012 at 3:00 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's shocking how often those who don't understand something project their own lack of understanding on others.
No shock at all you run to this security blanket style comment as often as you do.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#189 Mar 08 2012 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Debalic wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Hell, you can take 200 mile trips within New York...
I know I have, on more than one drunken Saturday night.
Cruisin' up and down the Taconic?That's what I did when I was nineteen and drunk!
More along the lines of "*hic* Hay taxi driver. Drive me home!" "Where is home, sir?" "That way!" "Um .." "Just keep goin' and I tells you where, k?"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#190 Mar 08 2012 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I find it hilarious how willing you are to put words in Locke's mouth, just to try and get it closer to your own twisted view of things.


Interesting defense mechanism. When you know you're wrong, you fall back on "laughing" at the other guy. I'm quoting Locke and then providing my interpretation of his words. You're free to argue for a different interpretation, but to just laugh it away suggests you are unable to.

Quote:
Did I say hilarious? I meant sad. Very, very sad.


Yeah. Definite defense mechanism.

Quote:
My favorite good is that you claim public good can't refer to healthcare, when Locke specifically notes that the absolute limit of legislative power is the public good--they have no right to go beyond that, for at that point they are no longer existing in the spirit of the people.


Favorite why? You're equating what he said to a public policy today, but with zero rationale behind it. Just declaring something so isn't terribly persuasive.

Quote:
And you think healthcare doesn't fall into that?


No, I don't. Why should I? I thought I pretty clearly explained myself on this point.

Quote:
You don't think helping people afford lifesaving medications isn't a public good?


You're simplifying (and double negating) the question. I already provided a very clear answer, so why ask the question again?

gbaji wrote:
And no, "public good" does not cover things like health care. Not in the direct form that Obamacare takes. You could argue that it does cover the CDC, or research, and whatnot. But the second you start taking money from people unequally in order to provide direct benefits (also unequally), the government has overstepped its bounds.


If you want to argue that legislative power, as defined by Locke, includes taking money from people unequally in order to provide direct unequal benefits, then do so. Just repeating the question as though in shock that I disagree doesn't really accomplish anything. Tell me why you think I'm wrong. Don't just express your assumption again.

Edited, Mar 8th 2012 4:39pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#191 Mar 08 2012 at 7:30 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Oh, so you're all for a socialized health care system that actually provides everyone with care, not just the poor and elderly?

Good to know, glad we sorted that out.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#192 Mar 09 2012 at 12:46 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:


Quote:
You don't think helping people afford lifesaving medications isn't a public good?


You're simplifying (and double negating) the question. I already provided a very clear answer, so why ask the question again?No, I don't. **** the poor.


FTFY
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#193 Mar 11 2012 at 3:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Protip: Universal healthcare is the very definition of an equal benefit.


I don't see how you can't understand that, gbaji. Also, as I've said before, you don't have to pay more than the average person pays for health insurance and everyone gets covered as a result. You aren't losing anything and there are tens of millions of stand to gain.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#194 Mar 11 2012 at 3:22 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Protip: Universal healthcare is the very definition of an equal benefit.


I don't see how you can't understand that, gbaji. Also, as I've said before, you don't have to pay more than the average person pays for health insurance and everyone gets covered as a result. You aren't losing anything and there are tens of millions of stand to gain.
BUT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE FORCING HIM TO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE FOR OTHER PEOPLE TOO AND THAT'S WRONG AND AWFUL AND BAD AND OMGWTF HOW CAN YOU NOT GET THAT!?*




*The fact that he already spends that money and that it would likely be cheaper too is irrelevant.
#195 Mar 11 2012 at 3:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Protip: Universal healthcare is the very definition of an equal benefit.


I don't see how you can't understand that, gbaji. Also, as I've said before, you don't have to pay more than the average person pays for health insurance and everyone gets covered as a result. You aren't losing anything and there are tens of millions of stand to gain.
BUT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE FORCING HIM TO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE FOR OTHER PEOPLE TOO AND THAT'S WRONG AND AWFUL AND BAD AND OMGWTF HOW CAN YOU NOT GET THAT!?*




*The fact that he already spends that money and that it would likely be cheaper too is irrelevant.

Apparently, spending less/the same money to help more than one person is bad. It infringes on his liberty!

Even though gbaji insists that he donates money to help poorer people get medical care any way. (He has done in the past, any way). His whole liberty argument is smoke and mirrors so that he can be a good little republican and support everything the party says.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#196 Mar 12 2012 at 3:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Protip: Universal healthcare is the very definition of an equal benefit.


But not equal cost. Also, by the very definition. Why is one thing lauded, while the other ignored?

If two people go into a store to buy the same shirt, but it costs one guy $5 and the other guy $20, wouldn't you say that the store owner was being unfair and treating his customers unequally? Jumping up and down and insisting it was fine because they both got the same result (the same shirt) ignores half of the issue. It's an important half.


Quote:
I don't see how you can't understand that, gbaji.


I do understand it. It's not a lack of understanding on my part that is the issue here. It's a refusal on your part to acknowledge that there are other aspects of the issue itself that is.


Quote:
Also, as I've said before, you don't have to pay more than the average person pays for health insurance and everyone gets covered as a result.


False. Mathematically impossible in fact.


Quote:
You aren't losing anything and there are tens of millions of stand to gain.


False. Of course I'm losing something. I'm losing a hell of a lot. Everything else being equal, if I pay more taxes than someone else for the exact same benefit, then I'm losing out and he's gaining. The only way a case for universal health care being less expensive (or even the same cost) is by playing tricks with averaging across the whole population. Of course the "average" is going to be the same. The question is who's paying more and who's paying less?

The reality is that those who could afford to pay for their own health care absent some sort of socialized system will always pay more under said socialized system. It's a mathematical impossibility for it to work any other way. Either that, or the value for their health care dollars is decreased. Something has to give. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#197 Mar 12 2012 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Quote:

Quote:
Also, as I've said before, you don't have to pay more than the average person pays for health insurance and everyone gets covered as a result.


False. Mathematically impossible in fact.


HA.

Cite please.

Edited, Mar 12th 2012 6:19pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#198 Mar 12 2012 at 4:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:

Quote:
Also, as I've said before, you don't have to pay more than the average person pays for health insurance and everyone gets covered as a result.


False. Mathematically impossible in fact.


HA.

Cite please.


You need a cite for math? Really!?

Read the quote and think about it. If the average price is X, and anyone pays less than the average price (which is an assumption in any sort of universal health care system), then someone... wait for it... must pay more than X. It's axiomatic to the concept of an "average". The only way for no one to pay more than the average is if no one pays less than the average.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#199 Mar 12 2012 at 4:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Please, let's have an argument about what the term 'average person' means.

I'll just be over here in the corner, jerking myself off with a fistful of broken glass.
#200 Mar 12 2012 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
It's been my experience that the only people that argue they're anywhere near being average are the people that are clearly below that particular bar.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#201 Mar 12 2012 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Please, let's have an argument about what the term 'average person' means.


In this context, I'm assuming that even though he said "average person", he meant "average amount paid". Because otherwise his statement is completely meaningless.

Quote:
I'll just be over here in the corner, jerking myself off with a fistful of broken glass.


Or, you could do that!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 274 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (274)