"Freedom" thread or something

^Exactly. The disappearence of the state in marxism is not really such. Their opposition to the burgueois state and the classic feudal state if we can call it that way is based on class, not really in the idea of making a governing body disappear. Their proposed dictatorship of the proletariat can't be understood in any other way but in the imposition of a ruling body, a governing group of people, hence, in a way, a state. I see tour point though.

I've realized that if one thing was constant throughout my life was total opposition to lose of personal liberty. I just never realized economic freedom was a good guarantee of personal one. I actually think it is one of the most, maybe the most, important values and goals. Society doesn't really have a goal. There are no macro goals or anything.

Regarding marxism, old-school marxism (is there any other?) is not too big a friend of private property. It's based on dictatorship (the proletariat one, which is really changing a sole dictator for a group). I don't see many connections here.

I'm not for minimal government Brian but for minimal restriction of liberty. If somehow government was the best guarantee for liberty, I wouldn't complain. Alas, history and reason show us is not the case but the opposite.

As I have repeatedly said, one offhe few areas when I'm not sure what's the best course of action, as with abortion, is with healthcare. I tend to end up siding with liberty and personal choice. But healthcare is a real complex issue.

What I meant by that is, if you want executive orders, then just go with a monarchy or dictatorship. The current system has too much friction built into it. I would prefer a Republic in the intent of the framers, but monarchs have their advantages too.

I think it's been a year now? I don't know. It feels like forever at this point. I've made so many changes throughout my life. Honestly, right now most of my political reading has been neo-marxist literature. I'm hesitant to say I'm anything since it's really more fluid than people have you believe. Every new thing you pick up every day factors into your assessment causing an amalgamation. Let's say a little over a year. I think my position as a minimal government libertarian came more from an inner denial and reluctance to abandoned once sacrosanct institutions rather than any strong intellectual reasoning.

Either that or just get rid of the Congress. 

Oh, when I worked at Aflac for a few months we all were required to be licensed, thus read up about all that kind of stuff. A lot of cost does go into overhead in the insurance industry, deciding who should and should not be allowed, so it makes sense to me to remove that (have everyone allowed). I also support removing the HMO system because that is a horrid clusterf**k.

It was actually a well run and responsible company and is able to provide excellent packages (sometimes with little or no screening) at crazy affordable prices. Even in a universal healthcare system I'd want secondary insurance like Aflac to exist, unregulated of course.


Edited by JJLehto - March 19 2012 at 15:06

Well it's known that I was (and in my heart still am) a big defender of universal healthcare, and was let down by the bill. I'll call it Romneycare just for sh*ts (and because its and expanded version of what he implemented in Mass).

I guess Romneycare is a step forward to universal healthcare... I just see it as a way to bring more people into our broken system and will not help the $$$ situation of it all. Maybe it's a real small stepping stone.

Honestly, I always supported it is just because of  what that article says. Every other country is f**king cheaper! Like it's not political BS or propaganda.
We spend way more on healthcare than any other country, though we use it less than the average, and of course don't have universal coverage. It just makes no sense.

People here gripe about "oh god imagine what the waits will be like!" but to see our family doctor usually needs a 3 day wait. If you are lucky...the next day, and if an issue needed to be dealt with then we had to go out of network (thus more money) OR to the hospital. Note at the out of network doctor we have had barely any wait!

What we have is f**ked but I'm not quite sure the best answer. Either a government/free market hybrid thing or total free market ( a la Paul) just not what we got now!

I would love if everybody here could comment on this article. Granted, is from Time magazine and by someone known to be on the left side of issues but it can be reasonably discussed. He basically kind of defends Obamacare as a step forward. We don't like it, but he raises the point of how other societies have some sort universal healthcare (not necessarily government-run) and they are way above the US in health rankings by typical standards of measurement. Opinions?

Fair enough, and just hypothetical. No one really wants Paul to run as a VP...just trying to justify such a heinous act in our minds.

Well no I deff don't want any more one step back two forward, it needs to be only forward from now on.
Like I said it'd be good for the message, we know Paul wouldn't sit quiet or let himself get pushed around.
It'd really be a shame on Romney for offering, he'd have to be totally moronic to do so. Without doubt if it's offered I hope he says no.

Just wondering, can there be "some sort of fed" ? Seems quite black and white.

Unless there was something like, reducing it to a literal reserve of money and it would not have the power to set interest rates and control the money supply. The latter part would have to be essential I'd imagine.


Edited by JJLehto - March 18 2012 at 21:14