$153,000 For a Rattlesnake Bite

[Shiranu]

If anything I'd say that having his his right to life enshrined in law is a pretty liberating thing.

At the cost of the value of his liberation and the implementation of someone elses'.

Being against the freedom to kill for 0 reason is to the benefit of everybody.

Except to the people who want the freedom to kill for zero reason.

Why should the fact it benefits you, or the majority, outweigh their freedom? Because it benefits the majority? Then you are arguing that the government should do what benefits the majority, even it restricts freedoms. Exactly what I have said it should do, and it's purpose is.

Again, you are literally making my argument for me, and then acting like you are winning. It's cute.

Shiranu: socialism doesnt mean socialism anymore words change man

Except socialism has multiple definitions, being a concept rather than an entity. There is no "entity" of "the socialism"... there is an entity of, "the government".

Just like the concept of "beautiful" can change meaning over time, but the object we call a "baseball" cannot. A baseball, is a baseball, is a baseball, no matter what word you want to use for it.

I see why you have been avoiding the etymology; you are not particularly great at it, are you? Perhaps spend a little less time finding lame memes and brush up on how linguistics work.

[Shiranu]

Here, I will throw you a bone...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government

Look at every single definition of government... note how literally every single one of them (except for the one saying it's the name for the federal government) state that it is a means for a group to implement their authority over another group.

The key concept of government is governance, authority, restriction of freedom; that is it's very nature. If you want to give it another definition, that is again... perfectly fine... but until you get any group of people to accept that definition than it is as meaningful as me saying "blue" means up.

Now, here is socialism...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Note; one of the definitions of it is a phase in between capitalism and communism, where the production or distribution of goods (but not necessarily ALL goods) is run by the state. Or that it's short for democratic socialism, "...in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth."

Aka, exactly what I am talking about. The hole you are digging yourself just keeps getting deeper and deeper, you disprove your own arguments, and you really want to keep flexing like you are somehow winning this argument.

[Gilgamesh]

Why should the fact it benefits you, or the majority, outweigh their freedom? Because it benefits the majority? Then you are arguing that the government should do what benefits the majority, even it restricts freedoms. Exactly what I have said it should do

Exactly what I have said it should do, as well - In some cases. I'm for socialised medicine despite recognising that it restricts the freedoms of certain individuals. I've been completely open about this more than once in here lol.

Again, you are literally making my argument for me, and then acting like you are winning. It's cute.

Yeah? What argument did I make, and what position do I hold does this argument work in opposition to?

[Gilgamesh]

Here, I will throw you a bone...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government

Look at every single definition of government... note how literally every single one of them (except for the one saying it's the name for the federal government) state that it is a means for a group to implement their authority over another group.

The key concept of government is governance, authority, restriction of freedom; that is it's very nature. If you want to give it another definition, that is again... perfectly fine... but until you get any group of people to accept that definition than it is as meaningful as me saying "blue" means up.

You are really good at arguing against strawmen, dude. You defeat your strawmen and then act smug about destroying your own creation.

What do you think you're arguing against here. What is going on in that head?

[Shiranu]

Exactly what I have said it should do, as well - In some cases.

Right... "in some cases". Except when it clashes too much with your ideology that, "...individual freedom should be protected before all else."

The problem is you don't seem to have any consistent basis for that, it's all just pulled out of your ass on where that line is rather than some rational line; which is perfectly fine, just don't try to act all high and mighty about that being your reason. You aren't arguing in favour of "individual freedom", you are arguing in favour of what you want vs what you don't want.

Yeah? What argument did I make, and what position do I hold does this argument work in opposition to?

That the government's primary role is to protect individual liberty rather than to hold power over a group for the (ideally, if not always in practice) betterment of society.

If the government is in the business of limiting freedom, it is inherently not in the business then of protecting freedom. That might be a side effect for people not effected by the limitations, but that is not it's primary purpose. The role of the government is to the govern, plain and simple, and governance means denying others of their freedom to maintain order.

You are really good at arguing against strawmen, dude.

What do you think you're arguing against here.

The government exists to ensure freedoms...

You have said that several times, and in several threads, and by definition, by logic, and by historical evidence dating back to essentially the beginning of history it is an incorrect statement. That section you quote addresses that; it states that a government is a form of authority, of holding power over someone else and using it... the exact opposite of ensuring freedom.


I'm still waiting for any example of a government, using the textbook definition of a government or even something a little more nebulous, that has the primary purpose of protecting the "individual freedom" of it's citizen.

[Baruch]

He came around a long, long while after governance... and his practices do not lead to either productive or long-lasting governments. I would say he is a very good example of what Government isn't suppose to inherently be.

Yes, you model your civics on cavemen, or future colonists on Alpha Centauri?  Concentrate on people today, or put this in the history or anthropology section.  You are in America, if you want to be Swedish, go there, and learn Swedish from the Swedish chef ;-)

Machiavelli told the truth about mankind.  An ugly Italian Mafia truth.  John Locke etc were full of shit.  And that is why the US, which is based on John Locke, is shitty.  Read Thomas Hobbes on absolute monarchy.

[Baruch]

It's not necessarily. Having the freedom to dish it out with 0 justification is bad.

I don't agree.  You are both making baseless assertions, and unlike Xero, you aren't making any statistical claims.  Give me some made up statistics!

[Jason78]

That is positively Communistic.  And why not apply that idea to all public service businesses?  USMcDonald's Big Macs, $1.50...  Never mind thye cost.  Everyone gets a few.  Open only Sunday noon to 1 pm.

When you're hungry, you've got plenty of options when it comes to food.

When you've got broken bones and you're bleeding from a car accident, you'll take the first ambulance that comes along.

That ambulance shouldn't be allowed to charge whatever it likes because a human being in pain will agree to almost anything for someone to take it away.

[Cavebear]

Let's say I discovery a way to prevent all cancers.  Let's say it costs me $5 per person.  Let's say I charge $5,000 a day for the cure.  People would try to pay it and I would be rich.  The government claims it has no power to take control of that method.  You would agree with that.

Now let's say I have a home and the government wants to build a road through it :for the public good".  They can and do. 

How is that different from taking a drug or method from an individual and taking a house from an individual "for the public good"?  Especially when "the public good" is MUCH greater in the case of a cancer cure...

[Baruch]

Let's say I discovery a way to prevent all cancers.  Let's say it costs me $5 per person.  Let's say I charge $5,000 a day for the cure.  People would try to pay it and I would be rich.  The government claims it has no power to take control of that method.  You would agree with that.

Now let's say I have a home and the government wants to build a road through it :for the public good".  They can and do. 

How is that different from taking a drug or method from an individual and taking a house from an individual "for the public good"?  Especially when "the public good" is MUCH greater in the case of a cancer cure...

It is a public good to minimize payment to government employees.  How do you feel about much fewer (too few) government employees?  What about if we use slaves, so that a person like you can't retire nicely?  In nature, it is right to rob, assault and murder.  Where is your morality coming from?  Mine isn't from authority (not even government law), but from my developed conscience.  Scared yet?  Shouldn't be, my conscience is opposed to robbing, assault and murder.  Stupid me, failing to go Darwinian on people.  Socialism is collective Darwinism, not Social Darwinism (which is individual Darwinism).  Like Darwinism, if it encourages natural behavior?

Yes, there is imminent domain.  The US redefined that a few years ago.  The SCOTUS says the government can take any properly, or goods, or your good name from you ... not just for common good, but to benefit a private party the government wants to benefit.  This is tyranny.  Feel good about eminent domain now?  How about the government takes back your retirement, as they want to take back the Social Security I haven't filed for yet?  They can and will.  And you will join me looking for food scraps from the dumpster in the alley.  Social solidarity!

The US has become Venezuela, we have Chavez and Maduro for leaders, but the hyperinflation and destitution hasn't arrived yet.

[Cavebear]

It is a public good to minimize payment to government employees.  How do you feel about much fewer (too few) government employees?  What about if we use slaves, s that a person like you can't retire nicely?  In nature, it is right to rob, assault and murder.  Where is your morality coming from?  Mine isn't from authority (not even government law), but from my developed conscience.  Scared yet?  Shouldn't be, my conscience is opposed to robbing, assault and murder.  Stupid me, failing to go Darwinian on people.  Socialism is collective Darwinism, not Social Darwinism (which is individual Darwinism).  Like Darwinism, if it encourages natural behavior?

Yes, there is imminent domain.  The US redefined that a few years ago.  The SCOTUS says the government can take any properly, or goods, or your good name from you ... not just for common good, but to benefit a private party the government wants to benefit.  This is tyranny.  Feel good about eminent domain now?  How about the government takes back your retirement, as they want to take back the Social Security I haven't filed for yet?  They can and will.  And you will join me looking for food scraps from the dumpster in the alley.  Social solidarity!

The US has become Venezuela, we have Chavez and Maduro for leaders, but the hyperinflation and destitution hasn't arrived yet.

That's easy.  Your initial statement is false.  If you want qualified government employees to perform vital functions, then they have to be paid. 

Not as highly as commercial equals are paid of course. One of the things that attracts people to government service is "service".  We accept lower pay the same way our more athletic and daring military government employees do though not so willing to run obstacle courses or face bullets or shoot others.  But some things have to be done to keep the "Gummint" working.

There are people who produce the checks that the susidized farmers love to see.  There are people who do soil tests that farmers depend on.  There are people who study diseases in order to prevent epidemics.  The list is very long, but you are not thinking of those things. 

I won't strain your fixated mind further.

[Baruch]

"If you want qualified government employees to perform vital functions, then they have to be paid."  Competence isn't a desired feature, according to neo-libs.  They just want all the fake money in their fake bank accounts ... so they can have one big happy planation, run from Zurich perhaps.

Yes, I am fortunate to work with basically competent Federal civilian and military.  But that isn't the end game.  Checkmate against "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is the goal.  Both for Republicans and Democrats circa 1865.

I am pro-government, I see it in action, and it isn't a boogie-man.  It is monkeys, all the way down.

[Cavebear]

"If you want qualified government employees to perform vital functions, then they have to be paid."  Competence isn't a desired feature, according to neo-libs.  They just want all the fake money in their fake bank accounts ... so they can have one big happy planation, run from Zurich perhaps.

Yes, I am fortunate to work with basically competent Federal civilian and military.  But that isn't the end game.  Checkmate against "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is the goal.  Both for Republicans and Democrats circa 1865.

I am pro-government, I see it in action, and it isn't a boogie-man.  It is monkeys, all the way down.

Why are all people "monkeys" to you then, and not apes?  There IS a difference.

[Baruch]

Why are all people "monkeys" to you then, and not apes?  There IS a difference.

People have had this argument with me before.  Rhetoric doesn't demand pedantic accuracy.  Monkeys are cute, and yes, the N word applies to all people, not just people from Africa (but we all came from Africa ultimately).  On Planet of the Apes, are you an orangutan, a chimpanzee, or a gorilla?

[Cavebear]

People have had this argument with me before.  Rhetoric doesn't demand pedantic accuracy.  Monkeys are cute, and yes, the N word applies to all people, not just people from Africa (but we all came from Africa ultimately).  On Planet of the Apes, are you an orangutan, a chimpanzee, or a gorilla?

Accuracy demands accuracy. 

LOL!  Did you really think you had to remind me we all came from Africa?  I've been studying general and human evolution for 50 years now.  I dare say I could answer most any question you have. 

On the Planet Of The Apes, I am a human.