Beto: 'We Don't Have Time' For Medicare-For-All

I'm not really into pot but I understand there are plenty of stoners who are addicted and can't go without it.

Pretending there are no negative health effects or studies which prove there are is just dumb. Other than that I'm don't feel a need to debate pot issues.

 

It's a mental addiction. Not physical. I go without just fine.

 

This argument is getting way off topic and you are saturating your rebuttals with all kinds of strawman arguments that I'm not making. You are arguing for extremes. One extreme or the other. Either totalitarianism or anarchy. There's a middle ground responsiblity of government.

I don't think I'm advocating Utilitarianism at all just because I favor what is best for society in general. Who doesn't? Who wants things that are not good for society? I would think Utilitarianism would be against alchohol. No alcoholism, no alcohol related traffic deaths. Good for the majority of society, right?

 

Regardless of whether or not your realize it - you are making Utilitarian arguments. Who are you to tell someone whether or not they should smoke pot or whether two adults can or can not exchange money for sex ?

Either you have respect for individual liberty or you don't. Do you like others forcing their personal beliefs on you through physical violence ? -- I thought not - then why do you think it is ok for you to do this to others ?

Your responses are mostly "because it harms society" - this is 100% a utilitarian justification.

Then you go on some nonsense kick about 'Strawman" what friggen strawman - what did I say that you said that you did not say ?

Then this nonsense about extremes - Totalitarianism vs Anarchy. Who said anything about anarchy. If you don't know the difference between 1) individual liberty and 2) Murder - It is not my fault. Liberties end where the nose of another begins - not where the nose of society begins.

Then you go on with this "I favor what is best for society in general" nonsense .. followed by "who doesn't" which is even bigger nonsense.
What does that have to do with anything ? What you favor and what someone else favors are two different things. Talk to a Muslim and they favor Sharia - talk to someone else and they don't like smoking but drinking is ok - talk to another and it is something different

The whole point of liberty being "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't... is so you are not subject to what someone else happens to favor - unless there is overwhelming agreement.

If you don't like alcohol - don't drink. This does not give you the right to force others not to drink. There is no "overwhelming agreement" for any of the items I mentioned "Pot, Prostitution, Porn, Abortion - and on and on and on.

What part of "Overwhelming majority" do you not understand. What part of "This is the main principle of Republicanism" do you not understand.

You are no follower of the Principles of Republicanism - This was understandable given that through 12 years of school we manage not to teach the founding principles. It is no longer understandable give I have just explained these principles to you .. and it is not real complicated.

 

Regardless of whether or not you realize it - you are making Utilitarian arguments. You think it's best for society to have abortion on demand, legalization of drugs, sex trafficking and exploitation of women for sex & porn.

I have respect for human life. You apparently don't.

That's pretty much the justification for all laws.

All the off topic items you named pretty much.

Just seems to me you argue for totalitarianism on some things and anarchy on others and anyone in between is a utilitarian.

Talk to someone else and they like sex with children. Does that mean we can't have laws about sex with children?

Or Utilitarianism in other words?

I still don't understand what any of this has to do with Medicare for all.

If the overwhelming majority wanted slavery, then slavery is okay? Naw.

I have a different view of founding principles than you. I believe it means the government can't force you to pay them for the doctor of their choice.

 

That was debunked and proven to be a lie LONG ago. I smoked plenty of weed 45 years ago but today, after 35 years of not bothering with it, I tried it again (it's legal in Oregon now) and found I really don't care for it. I thought it was GREAT when I was 20 and sat with friends getting stoned and goofing on each other and playing music. But now I know it was the social aspect of it that was great. But I saw no one ever become addicted. Ever.

But this is all off-topic.

 

^^^Playing with words.

 

Yeah, sorry. People keep bringing in off topic analogies and strawman arguments, I keep trying to get back to the topic.

 

Yup. That is what every other country has for half our cost and with better outcomes.

 

What a bunch of nonsense. You do not understand the founding principles and I have not made a single utilitarian argument.

What does "sex trafficking have to do with this discussion" that is illegal and for good reason ?? Forcing someone to do something against their will is an action of force by one person on another.

If you think this has something to do with individual liberty you need some serious schooling.

You seriously have no clue.

what is this blabber - I have respect for the life of humans. A single human cell is a different matter. Did you cry real tears due to the skin cells (human life) that you killed when typing the nonsense that you type ?

Utilitarianism is not the justification for law as per the founding principles. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Finally - after a massive spell of vomitous gibberish - you ask a reasonable question.

The reason why slavery was allowed was because it was accepted as the norm at the time. When opinion changed so did the law which is how it is supposed to be.

Law is not about what you think is moral .. and it is not what about you think is OK. There are principles - and either you follow them or you don't. If you can get 2/3rds of "we the people" to agree with you .. that law is "legitimate". This does not mean the law is moral or right. It does however make the law legitimate.

Either you respect this principle or you do not ... and you do not.

 

And another liberal who thinks our healthcare providers are worse than other countries. I believe America has the best healthcare. Why people in the healthcare industry vote for Democrats who think they are terrible at their jobs is baffling to me.

 

I'm tempted to rebut this but it's so off topic and I'm trying to get the thread back on topic.

 

I don't operate on beliefs regarding healthcare. I operate on facts.

 

Good idea. Currently we pay more than 3.5 Trillion per year for healthcare All other first world nations have primarily Gov't run systems. These systems give the people more (universal healthcare) but cost roughly half of what we are paying.

Our system is so insane that even hard core Republican groups are now favoring universal healthcare - Gov't run.

Your argument for maintaining this high spend is that you don't want people who don't contribute to the system to have healthcare and you don't want a Gov't run system.

To me this makes no sense. What makes sense to me is what these folks are saying:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

 

And your examples of this anti-individual rights and Red Establishment quazi totalitarian nanny state?

 

And as far as Beto and his plans

Beto speaks to empty pews at Iowa church

To say the church Robert “Beto” O’Rourke spoke to this morning was half-empty might be generous.

There just doesn’t seem to be much interest in his candidacy for president.

Nevertheless, the failed Texas Senate candidate appeared in Waterloo, Iowa at Mt. Carmel Baptist Church on Sunday, and judging by a video tweeted by Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier reporter Thomas Eric Nelson, he didn’t compel many to turn out.

. @BetoORourke is taking about Texas desegregating higher education. pic.twitter.com/D1zcyKbIl9

— Thomas Eric Nelson (@tomnelson87) June 9, 2019
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-beto-speaks-to-nearly-empty-church-in-iowa/

Beto's going nowhere and a waste of bandwidth to even discuss.

 

I assume you believe in "limited Gov't authority" one of the primary tenets of Republicanism.

So then tell me - what is that authority limited to ? - as per the founding principles - as found in the Declaration of Independence.

 

No, answer what I asked about your assertion

And your examples of this anti-individual rights and Red Establishment quazi totalitarian nanny state?

 

There is no point in having a discussion with someone about individual liberty - unless that person actually knows what individual liberty is.

So once again - 1) do you think the power of Gov't should be limited 2) if so - limited to what ? - you can give your own opinion but I am speaking with respect to the founding principles.

Having a conversation about "illegitimacy of authority" is meaningless unless you first know what the legitimate authority of Govt is.

 

There is no point if you refuse to respond to the questions I ask.

And your examples of this anti-individual rights and Red Establishment quazi totalitarian nanny state?

 

The question you asked depends on what your definition of "individual liberty" and "Tyranny" is.

That your refusal to give your definition a function of lack of knowledge or are you just being obtuse ? If you like I can give you the definition - as per the founding fathers.

Since you seem to not be interested in "substance" I will give the short version.

Legitimate Authority of Gov't (with respect to liberty) is protection from direct harm - actions involving one person on another - murder, rape, theft and so on. These acts are then not part of essential liberty.

Individual liberty was put "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't = The Gov't is to have no legitimate authority to make "any law" that messes with individual liberty - outside the legitimate purview described above.

The only way law messing with liberty can be legitimate is through a change to the social contract - construct by which authority is given to some authority by "we the people"/ consent of the Governed. The bar for such is not 50+1 .. the bar is overwhelming majority - at least 2/3rds.

Both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism describe 50+1 as "tyranny of the majority". This is also how a constitutional republic is defined.

The same is true of Simple Majority Mandate - that being elected is valid justification to make law that messes with individual liberty. This is also "Tyranny". If this were the case there would be no point in putting individual liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

Obviously there are a plethora of laws that do not meet the 2/3rd/ overwhelming majority bar. One could list of hundreds of Laws on the books that do not meet this bar.

Pot, Prostitution, Gambling, Abortion, Arbitrary Search and seizure, Super Size, Store hours, Alcohol consumption, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Child Custody, Child Support ... and this is just the tip of the iceberg off the top of my head.

It is unfortunate that so few people know the principles on which this nation was founded. This is because through 12 years of school we manage not to teach a kid these principles.

 

If you guys have an argument other than a bunch of false equivalencies, that would be nice.

 

Beto: 'We Don't Have Time' For Medicare-For-All...We will all be dead in 12 years according to Ocasio-Cortez.

 

What is just "dumb" is claiming that harm reduction - in of itself- is valid justification for law in a nation that was founded on respect for individual liberty.

Are you a true blue Utilitarian ?

 

No, I'm Catholic.