Topic: I just realized, someday in the not far off future, weed will be free and legal.
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #4,773
Legal: It's just gonna happen
Free: Social health care. (medical weed)
:')
Free: Social health care. (medical weed)
:')
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous !N1toQkxgzc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later[^] [v] #84,565
This is going to be AWESOME.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 36 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,581
Yay I won't have to spend 20 dollars weekly!
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 41 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,652
If it was going to be Medical weed, it would still need to be prescribed. Somebody will still have to pay.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 53 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,748
@previous (D)
> If it was going to be Medical weed, it would still need to be prescribed.
Easy enough.
> Somebody will still have to pay.
Socialized health care. :))
> If it was going to be Medical weed, it would still need to be prescribed.
Easy enough.
> Somebody will still have to pay.
Socialized health care. :))
drea mworks joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,761
If there would be medical weed it would be heavily abused.
Auschwitz !b.8nkuAfGw joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,762
> MfwAnonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,764
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,766
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,767
drea mworks replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,774
@84,764 (G)
> implying weed is legal in holland
@84,766 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
this is about weed
@previous (A)
at cost of the tax payer
> implying weed is legal in holland
@84,766 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
this is about weed
@previous (A)
at cost of the tax payer
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,782
drea mworks replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,867
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,881
@previous (drea mworks)
Why do you have a problem with medical weed being abused but not medical pain pills?
Why do you have a problem with medical weed being abused but not medical pain pills?
drea mworks replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,883
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,885
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,889
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,893
@84,774 (drea mworks)
> at cost of the tax payer
And yet this will still be neglibible.
Tax the rich, and stop waging wars. Suddenly there is a surpolus and money can be spend on health care, education, infrastructure, and science.
> at cost of the tax payer
And yet this will still be neglibible.
Tax the rich, and stop waging wars. Suddenly there is a surpolus and money can be spend on health care, education, infrastructure, and science.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,897
Mr. Philanthropist !!jQ7qh1NS5 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,925
I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, and although I don't smoke it myself, I do sympathize with those who choose to use it recreationally but can't do so without worrying about the law. I won't get started on all the harm the war on drugs has caused. However, I really don't think it will be legal in my lifetime. Also, I highly doubt that the United States will have fully socialized medicine. There may be a public option that anyone can buy to compete with private insurance companies, and there may be programs to help people on a need basis, but I don't see America ever making healthcare free for everyone and then just footing the tax payers with the bill. Nothing is free. Furthermore, even if medical marijuana became mainstream and legalized on the state and federal level, and socialized medicine increased, I think they would be reluctant to prescribe it or insure it because of the high potential for abuse. If it's ever fully legalized, then insurance wouldn't cover it because it would be so cheap and OTC that it would be like your insurance covering aspirin.
Best of luck in your efforts to get it legalized though.
Best of luck in your efforts to get it legalized though.
drea mworks replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,931
drea mworks double-posted this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,932
@84,893 (A)
> health care, education, infrastructure, and science.
None of these have to do with smoking pot for none medical reasons
> health care, education, infrastructure, and science.
None of these have to do with smoking pot for none medical reasons
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 51 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,003
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,052
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,273
I do not believe socialism is the answer.
What do you think of Ron Paul?
What do you think of Ron Paul?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,290
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,294
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
If he runs...
I am not an American but I agree with Ron Paul. I rather like him. My country, too, has sent troops to interfere with many nations.
If he runs...
I am not an American but I agree with Ron Paul. I rather like him. My country, too, has sent troops to interfere with many nations.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 57 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,349
@previous (K)
I don't completely agree with his stance on the Federal Reserve, the gold standard, religion, abortion, states rights, or his foreign policy. I support him mainly because he's the only candidate who has the courage to stand up and say that we need to cut the federal government down to a fraction of the current monstrosity it has become, and this is the only way we're ever going to reduce the tax burden, fix the economy, balance the budget, pay off the national debt, and start putting money towards things that are really important.
Anytime the government talks about cuts, they always use the things you really want as a shield for the wasteful spending that they don't want to get rid of because of corruption and special interest. In other words, they hold the things we should be spending money on hostage. Rather than cut out the billions of dollars that go towards banks, corporate welfare, pointless regulation and bureaucracy, and lucrative government contracts, they say "Well, I guess we're gonna have to cut funding to medicare, social security, roads, schools, etc." They know almost no one will vote to cut those things, and as a result, they know that their pork is safe. Anyone who tries to call their bluff and vote for that to try and cut down into the pork gets labeled as not caring for the poor, children, or elderly. Anyone who votes to legalize drugs to stop the drug war spending gets labeled as a quitter who's soft on drugs, or accused of being a druggie themselves. Democrats vote to keep these things in place, but as a result end up inadvertantly shielding the pork, while republicans vote to cut away at anything they can out of desperation and get labeled as elitists, pigs, and bigots. Republicans and democrats both lose, and the only winners are the people getting your tax dollars. Ron Paul is the only one who would put a stop to all this nonsense, call all the bluffs and force them to cut down the budget. This is why true fiscal conservatives, libertarians, several people in the tea party movement, and even a handful of fiscally conscious democrats all support him, and it's why most people who are part of the system fear him.
I don't completely agree with his stance on the Federal Reserve, the gold standard, religion, abortion, states rights, or his foreign policy. I support him mainly because he's the only candidate who has the courage to stand up and say that we need to cut the federal government down to a fraction of the current monstrosity it has become, and this is the only way we're ever going to reduce the tax burden, fix the economy, balance the budget, pay off the national debt, and start putting money towards things that are really important.
Anytime the government talks about cuts, they always use the things you really want as a shield for the wasteful spending that they don't want to get rid of because of corruption and special interest. In other words, they hold the things we should be spending money on hostage. Rather than cut out the billions of dollars that go towards banks, corporate welfare, pointless regulation and bureaucracy, and lucrative government contracts, they say "Well, I guess we're gonna have to cut funding to medicare, social security, roads, schools, etc." They know almost no one will vote to cut those things, and as a result, they know that their pork is safe. Anyone who tries to call their bluff and vote for that to try and cut down into the pork gets labeled as not caring for the poor, children, or elderly. Anyone who votes to legalize drugs to stop the drug war spending gets labeled as a quitter who's soft on drugs, or accused of being a druggie themselves. Democrats vote to keep these things in place, but as a result end up inadvertantly shielding the pork, while republicans vote to cut away at anything they can out of desperation and get labeled as elitists, pigs, and bigots. Republicans and democrats both lose, and the only winners are the people getting your tax dollars. Ron Paul is the only one who would put a stop to all this nonsense, call all the bluffs and force them to cut down the budget. This is why true fiscal conservatives, libertarians, several people in the tea party movement, and even a handful of fiscally conscious democrats all support him, and it's why most people who are part of the system fear him.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,353
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> the Federal Reserve, the gold standard, religion, abortion, states rights, or his foreign policy.
What is your position on these issues?
I agree with your sentiments.
> the Federal Reserve, the gold standard, religion, abortion, states rights, or his foreign policy.
What is your position on these issues?
I agree with your sentiments.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,425
@previous (K)
Sorry for not breaking this up into separate posts.
The Federal Reserve was put in place to prevent another great depression, and it has worked, and the gold standard has its flaws. Sometimes we need inflation. The Fed needs to be more closely audited and regulated, but not abolished. The biggest problem with the Fed now is how banks abuse it. Banks want people to believe that the economy is still unstable so that the Fed will keeps rates low, meanwhile they can use the "credit crisis" as an excuse to keep credit card interest rates artificially high to keep the country in debt. If there really were a credit crisis, banks would be putting ridiculously high interest rates on savings accounts to motivate people to get out of debt to put money in savings, to free up more money for the credit market. If there actually was a credit crisis, banks wouldn't have .03% interest rates on savings accounts right now. (You read that right, three one-hundredths of one percent.) They can keep in that low because the Fed rate is so low, but that doesn't stop them from charging at least 10% on credit cards and at least 1.6% or so on even the lowest interest loans out there. Fuck banks. Use credit unions. The biggest problem in this crisis is apathy. If everyone just used credit unions instead of banks, problem solved. Banks make all the money they do because people let them.
Ron Paul is a pretty socially conservative guy, but only on a personal level. He does not want to force his beliefs on anyone (for the most part) which makes him very socially liberal for a republican. He supports ending the drug war and legalizing all drugs. He believes that drug problems should be treated as a public health problem, not a crime problem. He believes very strongly in states rights, and that anything the states can handle on their own, the federal government should stay out of it. From a fiscal perspective, I agree with this very much, but I have a huge problem with the social aspects of this. He believes that Roe v Wade should be overturned and that abortion rights should be given to the states, and also believes that gay marriage issues should be left up to the states. While this is a step above dipshits like Huckabee who want to completely outlaw abortion and gay marriage at the federal level, so that states like Massachusetts wouldn't even be allowed to have gay marriage, I think Ron would be giving states too much power with this. We live in a republic, not a pure democracy, and that means that certain rights are guaranteed and cannot be overturned by tyranny of the majority. It is the Federal governments job to protect those right to ensure the republic. Just like states rights didn't work with slavery, they don't work with things like a woman's right to choose what to do with her body and life, and they don't work with things like allowing states to discriminate against gays. Just like separate but equal didn't work with segregation and the Federal government had to force the south to integrate, separate but equal doesn't work with marriage versus civil unions either. Either everyone can get married or everyone can get civil unions. I don't give a shit about what your religion says about marriage and definitions can't be used to infringe on someone's civil rights. The federal government needs to make sure that states can't get away with this kind of bullshit.
On religion, he has dropped hints that he's a creationist, which sickens me, but he has made it explicitly clear that his personal beliefs do not affect his motives as a politician and he would never try to pass legislation based on his beliefs. He has stated that things like evolution are to be left up to scientists, and it's not his job as a politician to interfere with those things. This goes back to my last point though about some states being fucking retarded, and bible belt states want to do away with evolution and teach creationism in schools. Fuck that. Just like the feds require certain reading, writing, and math standards in schools, they should also have standards for science and biology and that includes theories like evolution. Also, we need to raise the standards, big time. Some very fiscal conservatives might not agree that free public education is right, but at the very least we should all be able to agree that state governments shouldn't be allowed to impede education with this sort of propaganda. The Federal government needs to step in and set standards in order to ensure that childrens' rights to education is not being violated with religious bullshit. The same standards should apply to home schooling.
On foreign policy, Ron Paul emphasizes that he is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist. People try to label him as an isolationist, but he is all for free trade between nations and open cooperation and diplomacy, etc. I like the idea of a non-interventionist policy from a fiscal perspective, because we throw way too much money around the world, but I worry about what long-reaching affects pulling out of the world completely can have. We need to stop giving money away to countries like Israel, and we need to stop letting the UN work its way up to being an unelected world government. Nothing is more important that US sovereignty IMO, and Paul agrees. On the subject of illegal immigration, I agree with Ron Paul almost completely. Mexicans are used as a scapegoat for the real problem, which is our entitlement system. Xenophobes always complain about how Mexicans can come here and get free education for their kids, free emergency medical care from hospitals, welfare, foodstamps, subsidized housing, etc. The solution is stop these entitlement programs that allow people to get all these things for free, whether you're Mexican or not. Also, stop pussy-footing around the issue by saying things like it's racist to have someone show ID or social security number to get these services. If they're not here legally, then they don't have any legal right to those services. I believe we need to have more open borders and let people live here legally, but for fucks sake, if according to the law, you're not even supposed to be here, then you can't use the law to your advantage when it's convenient for you. That's doing something so bad you get a bounty on your head, then trying to turn yourself in for the reward.
Sorry for not breaking this up into separate posts.
The Federal Reserve was put in place to prevent another great depression, and it has worked, and the gold standard has its flaws. Sometimes we need inflation. The Fed needs to be more closely audited and regulated, but not abolished. The biggest problem with the Fed now is how banks abuse it. Banks want people to believe that the economy is still unstable so that the Fed will keeps rates low, meanwhile they can use the "credit crisis" as an excuse to keep credit card interest rates artificially high to keep the country in debt. If there really were a credit crisis, banks would be putting ridiculously high interest rates on savings accounts to motivate people to get out of debt to put money in savings, to free up more money for the credit market. If there actually was a credit crisis, banks wouldn't have .03% interest rates on savings accounts right now. (You read that right, three one-hundredths of one percent.) They can keep in that low because the Fed rate is so low, but that doesn't stop them from charging at least 10% on credit cards and at least 1.6% or so on even the lowest interest loans out there. Fuck banks. Use credit unions. The biggest problem in this crisis is apathy. If everyone just used credit unions instead of banks, problem solved. Banks make all the money they do because people let them.
Ron Paul is a pretty socially conservative guy, but only on a personal level. He does not want to force his beliefs on anyone (for the most part) which makes him very socially liberal for a republican. He supports ending the drug war and legalizing all drugs. He believes that drug problems should be treated as a public health problem, not a crime problem. He believes very strongly in states rights, and that anything the states can handle on their own, the federal government should stay out of it. From a fiscal perspective, I agree with this very much, but I have a huge problem with the social aspects of this. He believes that Roe v Wade should be overturned and that abortion rights should be given to the states, and also believes that gay marriage issues should be left up to the states. While this is a step above dipshits like Huckabee who want to completely outlaw abortion and gay marriage at the federal level, so that states like Massachusetts wouldn't even be allowed to have gay marriage, I think Ron would be giving states too much power with this. We live in a republic, not a pure democracy, and that means that certain rights are guaranteed and cannot be overturned by tyranny of the majority. It is the Federal governments job to protect those right to ensure the republic. Just like states rights didn't work with slavery, they don't work with things like a woman's right to choose what to do with her body and life, and they don't work with things like allowing states to discriminate against gays. Just like separate but equal didn't work with segregation and the Federal government had to force the south to integrate, separate but equal doesn't work with marriage versus civil unions either. Either everyone can get married or everyone can get civil unions. I don't give a shit about what your religion says about marriage and definitions can't be used to infringe on someone's civil rights. The federal government needs to make sure that states can't get away with this kind of bullshit.
On religion, he has dropped hints that he's a creationist, which sickens me, but he has made it explicitly clear that his personal beliefs do not affect his motives as a politician and he would never try to pass legislation based on his beliefs. He has stated that things like evolution are to be left up to scientists, and it's not his job as a politician to interfere with those things. This goes back to my last point though about some states being fucking retarded, and bible belt states want to do away with evolution and teach creationism in schools. Fuck that. Just like the feds require certain reading, writing, and math standards in schools, they should also have standards for science and biology and that includes theories like evolution. Also, we need to raise the standards, big time. Some very fiscal conservatives might not agree that free public education is right, but at the very least we should all be able to agree that state governments shouldn't be allowed to impede education with this sort of propaganda. The Federal government needs to step in and set standards in order to ensure that childrens' rights to education is not being violated with religious bullshit. The same standards should apply to home schooling.
On foreign policy, Ron Paul emphasizes that he is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist. People try to label him as an isolationist, but he is all for free trade between nations and open cooperation and diplomacy, etc. I like the idea of a non-interventionist policy from a fiscal perspective, because we throw way too much money around the world, but I worry about what long-reaching affects pulling out of the world completely can have. We need to stop giving money away to countries like Israel, and we need to stop letting the UN work its way up to being an unelected world government. Nothing is more important that US sovereignty IMO, and Paul agrees. On the subject of illegal immigration, I agree with Ron Paul almost completely. Mexicans are used as a scapegoat for the real problem, which is our entitlement system. Xenophobes always complain about how Mexicans can come here and get free education for their kids, free emergency medical care from hospitals, welfare, foodstamps, subsidized housing, etc. The solution is stop these entitlement programs that allow people to get all these things for free, whether you're Mexican or not. Also, stop pussy-footing around the issue by saying things like it's racist to have someone show ID or social security number to get these services. If they're not here legally, then they don't have any legal right to those services. I believe we need to have more open borders and let people live here legally, but for fucks sake, if according to the law, you're not even supposed to be here, then you can't use the law to your advantage when it's convenient for you. That's doing something so bad you get a bounty on your head, then trying to turn yourself in for the reward.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,431
@84,897 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
> War is profitable
Not for the pepople/government, only for the corporations that get involved.
> and helps progression.
Lol.
> War is profitable
Not for the pepople/government, only for the corporations that get involved.
> and helps progression.
Lol.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,439
@previous (A)
This. Look up "bread or bullets." The money used to fund the war comes out of the tax payers pockets, which is money that would have otherwise been spent on things that probably would have been more beneficial to society. The argument that war creates jobs because people need to make uniforms, guns, bullets, etc. is moot for the same reason. If that money was back in the tax payers pocket, it would be spent on things like new clothes and new cars instead of uniforms and tanks, so jobs are created either way. Not to mention that things like cars over here are more beneficial to the overall wealth of society than a tank getting blown up in Korea. War is a waste.
As far as war improving technology and progression, that's just because the government pumps a lot of money into research and development when we're at war. We could just do that without killing people. Most of our technological leaps came about during the cold war when we were trying to use space tech to intimidate the russians.
This. Look up "bread or bullets." The money used to fund the war comes out of the tax payers pockets, which is money that would have otherwise been spent on things that probably would have been more beneficial to society. The argument that war creates jobs because people need to make uniforms, guns, bullets, etc. is moot for the same reason. If that money was back in the tax payers pocket, it would be spent on things like new clothes and new cars instead of uniforms and tanks, so jobs are created either way. Not to mention that things like cars over here are more beneficial to the overall wealth of society than a tank getting blown up in Korea. War is a waste.
As far as war improving technology and progression, that's just because the government pumps a lot of money into research and development when we're at war. We could just do that without killing people. Most of our technological leaps came about during the cold war when we were trying to use space tech to intimidate the russians.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,443
@84,925 (Mr. Philanthropist !!jQ7qh1NS5)
> However, I really don't think it will be legal in my lifetime.
People used to believe in reefer madness, and other ridiculous things, like it could kill you, and would "kill braincells". Recently public opinion has been changing fast. Prop 19, and similar bills in other states have shocking support. Maybe it will take a few years, but polls show a lot of people are in favor of it.
> I don't see America ever making healthcare free for everyone and then just footing the tax payers with the bill. Nothing is free.
Private insurance companies used to pay out less then 70% of premiums back to the people. Legislation was recently passed that mandated that at least 80% has to go back to health care, and can't be eaten up by executives.
With universal health care no executives would get ridiculous paychecks. No shareholders would be expecting dividends, only the citizens would benefit. Keeping all of the citizens under one umbrella would make bargaining much more preferential for the citizens.
> Furthermore, even if medical marijuana became mainstream and legalized on the state and federal level, and socialized medicine increased, I think they would be reluctant to prescribe it or insure it because of the high potential for abuse.
Possible, but that's already a concern and most states make it very easy to get it.
> If it's ever fully legalized, then insurance wouldn't cover it because it would be so cheap and OTC that it would be like your insurance covering aspirin.
You can be prescribed OTC medicine, and you can get it billed to the insurance company. If it's cheap, that's just that much less they will care, if anything they may prefer people getting cheap medicine, then having to pay for expensive pain killers.
> However, I really don't think it will be legal in my lifetime.
People used to believe in reefer madness, and other ridiculous things, like it could kill you, and would "kill braincells". Recently public opinion has been changing fast. Prop 19, and similar bills in other states have shocking support. Maybe it will take a few years, but polls show a lot of people are in favor of it.
> I don't see America ever making healthcare free for everyone and then just footing the tax payers with the bill. Nothing is free.
Private insurance companies used to pay out less then 70% of premiums back to the people. Legislation was recently passed that mandated that at least 80% has to go back to health care, and can't be eaten up by executives.
With universal health care no executives would get ridiculous paychecks. No shareholders would be expecting dividends, only the citizens would benefit. Keeping all of the citizens under one umbrella would make bargaining much more preferential for the citizens.
> Furthermore, even if medical marijuana became mainstream and legalized on the state and federal level, and socialized medicine increased, I think they would be reluctant to prescribe it or insure it because of the high potential for abuse.
Possible, but that's already a concern and most states make it very easy to get it.
> If it's ever fully legalized, then insurance wouldn't cover it because it would be so cheap and OTC that it would be like your insurance covering aspirin.
You can be prescribed OTC medicine, and you can get it billed to the insurance company. If it's cheap, that's just that much less they will care, if anything they may prefer people getting cheap medicine, then having to pay for expensive pain killers.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,445
@85,273 (K)
I think he needs to understand symbiosm, society, and other important concepts. No man is an island, and libertarianism leads to a small elite destroying a shared environment, exploiting people, and getting away with whatever they please.
Here is an idea. A free libertarian world. Some people get together and form a socialist society, and charge the rich to live in their society. The rich are free to leave and find another place to live if they please, but the people of this nation chose freely to have socialized industries.
I think he needs to understand symbiosm, society, and other important concepts. No man is an island, and libertarianism leads to a small elite destroying a shared environment, exploiting people, and getting away with whatever they please.
Here is an idea. A free libertarian world. Some people get together and form a socialist society, and charge the rich to live in their society. The rich are free to leave and find another place to live if they please, but the people of this nation chose freely to have socialized industries.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,446
@85,443 (A)
You're right. They probably would prefer cheap OTC medication over expensive pain killers, but that assuming that marijuana is a perfect substitute for pain killers. It has different effects on different people, and some people don't like the effects of marijuana, just like some people wish they could smoke medicinal marijuana because they don't like how certain meds make them feel. Also, not all insurances cover OTC meds, even with a prescription, and if your copay is more than what the drugs cost anyway, and it usually is, it's pointless. This is still stupid, because then people are more inclined to get the more expensive non-OTC prescription rather than pay out of pocket for OTC, and this drives up insurance costs.
You're right. They probably would prefer cheap OTC medication over expensive pain killers, but that assuming that marijuana is a perfect substitute for pain killers. It has different effects on different people, and some people don't like the effects of marijuana, just like some people wish they could smoke medicinal marijuana because they don't like how certain meds make them feel. Also, not all insurances cover OTC meds, even with a prescription, and if your copay is more than what the drugs cost anyway, and it usually is, it's pointless. This is still stupid, because then people are more inclined to get the more expensive non-OTC prescription rather than pay out of pocket for OTC, and this drives up insurance costs.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,448
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> You're right. They probably would prefer cheap OTC medication over expensive pain killers, but that assuming that marijuana is a perfect substitute for pain killers. It has different effects on different people, and some people don't like the effects of marijuana, just like some people wish they could smoke medicinal marijuana because they don't like how certain meds make them feel.
This goes for many medications. Some people react in abnormal ways, and get sick. Some people are allergic. Some people heard bad things about it.
Not everyone will end up taking a cheap generic drug, but if they want to the insurance company won't be the one complaining.
> You're right. They probably would prefer cheap OTC medication over expensive pain killers, but that assuming that marijuana is a perfect substitute for pain killers. It has different effects on different people, and some people don't like the effects of marijuana, just like some people wish they could smoke medicinal marijuana because they don't like how certain meds make them feel.
This goes for many medications. Some people react in abnormal ways, and get sick. Some people are allergic. Some people heard bad things about it.
Not everyone will end up taking a cheap generic drug, but if they want to the insurance company won't be the one complaining.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,452
@85,425 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Aren't we in a massive financial crisis right now? Reading history books one would get the idea that modern US history is a never ending series of recession, inflation and unemployment.
You are right about apathy. Most evil is not caused by hate, but by a lack of love.
I am very socially conservative. I do not smoke, drink or take drugs. I am a virgin. I have never been to a club. But of course I would never FORCE someone to adopt my lifestyle.
You are wrong about the states having too much power. This is constitutionally delegated power. Currently the federal government is legislating on issues it does not have the constitutional authority to legislate upon. We can not force people to do the right thing. There is no constitutional right to abortion. I believe it is (for now) best left legal, but there is no constitutional right to it. I oppose anti-discrimination legislation (except in government and government-owned or possibly even subsidized corporations). Anti-discrimination laws are anti-liberty. The Federal government and the States have different ares of power. The federal government was not created to keep the states honest.
Why would that sicken you? I know lots of people who believe in all manner of conspiracy theories but it does not sicken me. Let the states govern the states. The federal government is not the states guardian, correcting them where they are wrong and teaching them. They are separate governments over separate areas. I feel education is best left to the states, so that their education systems can suit their societies better.
Pulling out of the world? Is that US speak for not shooting, bombing and otherwise killing brown people overseas? THIS sickens me. That we still discuss war this way. As an abstract concept. As if war is something more than killing people. This sickens me. Israel is a successful democracy, and would be low on my list of parties to cut funding to. First would be all non-democratic governments which the US loves to support. Second would be paramilitary and rebel organizations.
Yes, Racism is used by weak people to avoid dealing with issues. Illegal immigration is a big issue, and it's not racist to discuss it. I love latin people and their culture. I support as much immigration as society can handle. I do not believe in multiculturalism.
Aren't we in a massive financial crisis right now? Reading history books one would get the idea that modern US history is a never ending series of recession, inflation and unemployment.
You are right about apathy. Most evil is not caused by hate, but by a lack of love.
I am very socially conservative. I do not smoke, drink or take drugs. I am a virgin. I have never been to a club. But of course I would never FORCE someone to adopt my lifestyle.
You are wrong about the states having too much power. This is constitutionally delegated power. Currently the federal government is legislating on issues it does not have the constitutional authority to legislate upon. We can not force people to do the right thing. There is no constitutional right to abortion. I believe it is (for now) best left legal, but there is no constitutional right to it. I oppose anti-discrimination legislation (except in government and government-owned or possibly even subsidized corporations). Anti-discrimination laws are anti-liberty. The Federal government and the States have different ares of power. The federal government was not created to keep the states honest.
Why would that sicken you? I know lots of people who believe in all manner of conspiracy theories but it does not sicken me. Let the states govern the states. The federal government is not the states guardian, correcting them where they are wrong and teaching them. They are separate governments over separate areas. I feel education is best left to the states, so that their education systems can suit their societies better.
Pulling out of the world? Is that US speak for not shooting, bombing and otherwise killing brown people overseas? THIS sickens me. That we still discuss war this way. As an abstract concept. As if war is something more than killing people. This sickens me. Israel is a successful democracy, and would be low on my list of parties to cut funding to. First would be all non-democratic governments which the US loves to support. Second would be paramilitary and rebel organizations.
Yes, Racism is used by weak people to avoid dealing with issues. Illegal immigration is a big issue, and it's not racist to discuss it. I love latin people and their culture. I support as much immigration as society can handle. I do not believe in multiculturalism.
Anonymous K double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,453
@85,445 (A)
No one is suggesting withdrawing from society.
> and libertarianism leads to a small elite destroying a shared environment, exploiting people, and getting away with whatever they please.
This is simply not true. I would argue that the current system enables and encourages this behavior.
> Here is an idea. A free libertarian world. Some people get together and form a socialist society, and charge the rich to live in their society. The rich are free to leave and find another place to live if they please, but the people of this nation chose freely to have socialized industries.
I don't understand this.
No one is suggesting withdrawing from society.
> and libertarianism leads to a small elite destroying a shared environment, exploiting people, and getting away with whatever they please.
This is simply not true. I would argue that the current system enables and encourages this behavior.
> Here is an idea. A free libertarian world. Some people get together and form a socialist society, and charge the rich to live in their society. The rich are free to leave and find another place to live if they please, but the people of this nation chose freely to have socialized industries.
I don't understand this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,474
@previous (K)
> This is simply not true. I would argue that the current system enables and encourages this behavior.
A profit-driven corporation will dump toxic chemicals in a lake if it saves some money. It's regulation that prevents this.
> I don't understand this.
What don't you understand?
> This is simply not true. I would argue that the current system enables and encourages this behavior.
A profit-driven corporation will dump toxic chemicals in a lake if it saves some money. It's regulation that prevents this.
> I don't understand this.
What don't you understand?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,475
@85,443 (A)
Also, you shouldn't assume that just because insurance companies make profits that the government could do it better. I believe that insurance companies need to be regulated, and things like that 80% rule you mentioned are good moves, but since insurance companies are motivated by profit, they want to keep costs down. The government has no direct motive to keep costs down, and if the government covered everyone for everything, this would drive the demand for healthcare through the roof and create shortages. We already see this in other countries with socialized medicine. People don't realize just how much it increases the real cost of healthcare, because it's coming out of their taxes rather than their pockets.
I think the healthcare and hospital industry is a bigger problem than the insurance industry. Hospitals will charge people like $85 for a $10 towel or $35 for a $7 bottle medicine because they know that insurance companies will cover it. When my cousin had his first kid, he didn't have insurance and ended up paying the hospital half of what he paid when he had his second kid and had insurance. The hospital charged more simply because he had insurance and they knew they could bill the insurance more. This drives up insurance costs and makes it more difficult for people to get insurance. Insurance companies try to fight this to keep the costs down, but then they're accused of trying to skimp on what's best for the patient for the sake of saving money. The pharmaceutical industry has the same problem. They charge ludicrous prices for drugs because they know insurance companies will pay it. As soon as it's OTC, the price plummets. Look at the correlation between medicare, medicaid, and drug prices. The more money the govt. Pumps into those programs, the more drug prices go up, because demand goes up and drug companies charge more because they know that the government is footing the bill. So, if the government were to step in and make it completely socialized, how much would that jack up the prices? If they put price controls in place, how many doctors, nurses, and researchers would leave the industry, or choose not to go into the industry because it's not worth all the time in school and money to get a position that doesn't pay what it used to? This creates more shortages, more waiting time, and lower quality of care in health care. Price controls always do this.
The best solution, IMO, is a public option that would allow everyone the option of getting affordable insurance from the government, while at the same time making sure that private insurers stay competitive. The insurance industry should be regulated, but so should the health care and pharmaceutical industries. Whether or not someone has insurance should remain transparent so that doctors and hospitals cannot price discriminate and charge people with insurance more. Furthermore, colleges and medical schools should be given subsidies to agree to keep costs so low and admission rates so high to increase the number of people who go into medical related fields. This forces costs down by increasing the supply of medical personnel in the industry while at the same time raising the quality of care. This should NOT be done through student grants/loans because colleges do the same thing hospitals do. They just raise tuition because they the government will help students foot the bill, and as a result we've ended up with an inflated educations system where a bachelor's is like the new high school diploma, massive student loan debt, and super rich colleges. They should only get subsidies for keeping admission rates high and tuition costs low. In fact, they should just do this with all colleges and stop the student loan BS. This way everyone can afford school, everyone can afford insurance, healthcare costs aren't out of control, and it didn't even take a government takeover.
Also, you shouldn't assume that just because insurance companies make profits that the government could do it better. I believe that insurance companies need to be regulated, and things like that 80% rule you mentioned are good moves, but since insurance companies are motivated by profit, they want to keep costs down. The government has no direct motive to keep costs down, and if the government covered everyone for everything, this would drive the demand for healthcare through the roof and create shortages. We already see this in other countries with socialized medicine. People don't realize just how much it increases the real cost of healthcare, because it's coming out of their taxes rather than their pockets.
I think the healthcare and hospital industry is a bigger problem than the insurance industry. Hospitals will charge people like $85 for a $10 towel or $35 for a $7 bottle medicine because they know that insurance companies will cover it. When my cousin had his first kid, he didn't have insurance and ended up paying the hospital half of what he paid when he had his second kid and had insurance. The hospital charged more simply because he had insurance and they knew they could bill the insurance more. This drives up insurance costs and makes it more difficult for people to get insurance. Insurance companies try to fight this to keep the costs down, but then they're accused of trying to skimp on what's best for the patient for the sake of saving money. The pharmaceutical industry has the same problem. They charge ludicrous prices for drugs because they know insurance companies will pay it. As soon as it's OTC, the price plummets. Look at the correlation between medicare, medicaid, and drug prices. The more money the govt. Pumps into those programs, the more drug prices go up, because demand goes up and drug companies charge more because they know that the government is footing the bill. So, if the government were to step in and make it completely socialized, how much would that jack up the prices? If they put price controls in place, how many doctors, nurses, and researchers would leave the industry, or choose not to go into the industry because it's not worth all the time in school and money to get a position that doesn't pay what it used to? This creates more shortages, more waiting time, and lower quality of care in health care. Price controls always do this.
The best solution, IMO, is a public option that would allow everyone the option of getting affordable insurance from the government, while at the same time making sure that private insurers stay competitive. The insurance industry should be regulated, but so should the health care and pharmaceutical industries. Whether or not someone has insurance should remain transparent so that doctors and hospitals cannot price discriminate and charge people with insurance more. Furthermore, colleges and medical schools should be given subsidies to agree to keep costs so low and admission rates so high to increase the number of people who go into medical related fields. This forces costs down by increasing the supply of medical personnel in the industry while at the same time raising the quality of care. This should NOT be done through student grants/loans because colleges do the same thing hospitals do. They just raise tuition because they the government will help students foot the bill, and as a result we've ended up with an inflated educations system where a bachelor's is like the new high school diploma, massive student loan debt, and super rich colleges. They should only get subsidies for keeping admission rates high and tuition costs low. In fact, they should just do this with all colleges and stop the student loan BS. This way everyone can afford school, everyone can afford insurance, healthcare costs aren't out of control, and it didn't even take a government takeover.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,491
@85,474 (A)
No one is suggesting no regulation of activities that harm everyone, that is not part of libertarianism. Libertarians do not seek to decriminalize murder or theft.
It seemed you were advocating a tyranny of the majority.
No one is suggesting no regulation of activities that harm everyone, that is not part of libertarianism. Libertarians do not seek to decriminalize murder or theft.
It seemed you were advocating a tyranny of the majority.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,502
@previous (L)
> Libertarians do not seek to decriminalize murder or theft.
NO, but they do seek to eliminate the EPA.
Criminalized or not, the super rich, and large corporations can get away with murder and theft.
> It seemed you were advocating a tyranny of the majority.
I don't find it fair that the middle class should pay taxes, but that the super rich and many large corporations should get out of that simply because they can arrange to take advantage of tax havens. Google, Citibank, Bank of America, and many many many others didn't pay any taxes (usuncut.org).
They take advantage of contract enforcement, publicically educated employees, government run infrastructure, and a citizen populous for consumers and expect they should not help out in society. Well if the majority agrees they would not like these corporations to operate tax free, then they have the right to kick those corporations out.
> Libertarians do not seek to decriminalize murder or theft.
NO, but they do seek to eliminate the EPA.
Criminalized or not, the super rich, and large corporations can get away with murder and theft.
> It seemed you were advocating a tyranny of the majority.
I don't find it fair that the middle class should pay taxes, but that the super rich and many large corporations should get out of that simply because they can arrange to take advantage of tax havens. Google, Citibank, Bank of America, and many many many others didn't pay any taxes (usuncut.org).
They take advantage of contract enforcement, publicically educated employees, government run infrastructure, and a citizen populous for consumers and expect they should not help out in society. Well if the majority agrees they would not like these corporations to operate tax free, then they have the right to kick those corporations out.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,506
@previous (A)
The corporations themselves aren't taxed, but all the extra money they save is either a) is given to employees, CEOs, shareholders, etc., and then all those people have their income taxed or b) spent on company growth which will provide more jobs and improve the economy. If the corporation was taxed first, they would have less money to pay their executives, employees, and stockholders, and as a result those people would then be taxed less. So it's a zero sum game. Furthermore, taxing the corporation rather than the individuals who benefit from that money could mean that that corporation doesn't hire as many employees, or that they won't have as much capital to put into new investments, which could hurt the economy overall and not even increase tax revenue. In fact, since it's a zero sum game, but can hurt the overall well-being of the company, and the economy, there would actually be a decrease in tax revenue because of what economists call dead weight loss. And people in the company are making less money. It's lose lose. They should definitely go after the big CEOs who avoid taxes, but taxing the company as whole does not make any sense.
The only reason corporations are taxed is because people think and vote with their emotions rather than logic and reasoning. They hear that a company made 10 billion dollars and didn't give any of it to the government and that makes people angry, but when you explain it to people the way I did above, it suddenly makes sense to not tax corporations, and just tax the people who actually benefit from that money.
The corporations themselves aren't taxed, but all the extra money they save is either a) is given to employees, CEOs, shareholders, etc., and then all those people have their income taxed or b) spent on company growth which will provide more jobs and improve the economy. If the corporation was taxed first, they would have less money to pay their executives, employees, and stockholders, and as a result those people would then be taxed less. So it's a zero sum game. Furthermore, taxing the corporation rather than the individuals who benefit from that money could mean that that corporation doesn't hire as many employees, or that they won't have as much capital to put into new investments, which could hurt the economy overall and not even increase tax revenue. In fact, since it's a zero sum game, but can hurt the overall well-being of the company, and the economy, there would actually be a decrease in tax revenue because of what economists call dead weight loss. And people in the company are making less money. It's lose lose. They should definitely go after the big CEOs who avoid taxes, but taxing the company as whole does not make any sense.
The only reason corporations are taxed is because people think and vote with their emotions rather than logic and reasoning. They hear that a company made 10 billion dollars and didn't give any of it to the government and that makes people angry, but when you explain it to people the way I did above, it suddenly makes sense to not tax corporations, and just tax the people who actually benefit from that money.
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
drea mworks replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,516
@85,003 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
I'm just saying drugs shouldn't be abused by people, which will happen if weed only goes legal as a medicine, so we should legalize it completely.
I'm just saying drugs shouldn't be abused by people, which will happen if weed only goes legal as a medicine, so we should legalize it completely.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,526
@85,502 (A)
Yes, but eliminating the Department of Education would not dismantle schools. I have not read much on various libertarian politician's personal views on this, but I see a great need for environmental legislation, which would continue to function without an EPA.
They take advantage of the current system, which is bloated, full of holes and ineffectively managed. A smaller government would not have these problems.
> Well if the majority agrees they would not like these ethnic or religious group, then they have the right to kick those ethinc or religious groups out.
That's why we have constitutional limits on power.
Yes, but eliminating the Department of Education would not dismantle schools. I have not read much on various libertarian politician's personal views on this, but I see a great need for environmental legislation, which would continue to function without an EPA.
They take advantage of the current system, which is bloated, full of holes and ineffectively managed. A smaller government would not have these problems.
> Well if the majority agrees they would not like these ethnic or religious group, then they have the right to kick those ethinc or religious groups out.
That's why we have constitutional limits on power.