Too Bad

[franklin]

Elected representatives are not mobs. Equal protection comes from a culture, not a government system.

A government system lacking equal protection disincentivizes the populace and culture quickly devolves.

Government can pass laws that are supposed to apply equally, but only citizens can actually apply them equally. Government can pass laws that are unfair, but only citizens can use those laws unfairly.

You give no weighting to the structure of the law or how it is perceived? Surely laws that protect more equally and those portrayed as fair are far superior to those that are seen to encourage the citizenry to a) gain unfair advantage from the law or b) provide negative incentives that result in pushback, underachievement, etc.

It's irrational to expect any citizenry to uniformly conduct their lives in some Utopian way that applies each law equally and to achieve full potential. Once an advantage is exploited, the domino effect sets in as others want to get theirs too.

People who are starving don't feel free.

This is comically at the bottom of the emotional barrel. People who are starving don't feel the fulfilled pleasure. People who rely on others for their daily sustenance are not free.

It's not relevant to the USA.

Tell that to African-Americans, Irish-Catholics, Mormons, and 20th century Japanese.

 

[One Brow]

You give no weighting to the structure of the law

Sure, but even the structure of a law will be a reflection of the culture that produces it.

or how it is perceived?

The perception of the law is my point entirely.

This is comically at the bottom of the emotional barrel. People who are starving don't feel the fulfilled pleasure. People who rely on others for their daily sustenance are not free.

We live in a highly interconnected society. Even farmers rely on others for their daily sustenance.

Everyone likes to think they are the wolf. But in reality, most people are actually the dog. You're not free if yo are a slave to yor belly.

Tell that to African-Americans, Irish-Catholics, Mormons, and 20th century Japanese.

Which of them are currently subject to mob rule? As the federal government has increased in scope, mob rule has decreased.

 

[franklin]

Sure, but even the structure of a law will be a reflection of the culture that produces it.

So there's no use without a moral culture? Can't laws be influential enough to either promote advancement or degradation of the culture?

We live in a highly interconnected society. Even farmers rely on others for their daily sustenance.

Does a higher level specialization result in higher interdependence or is it a result of higher independence? History skews heavily to the side of independence. There's a big difference between choosing to produce and consume and being solely reliant on the production of others. Society has always been dependent on others at one level or another. That's hardly the rationalization you're using it as.

Everyone likes to think they are the wolf. But in reality, most people are actually the dog. You're not free if yo are a slave to yor belly.

And you're not free if you're a slave to the production of another. There's more than one aspect to freedom. Also, I wrote earlier there is a difference between safety nets and all encompassing programs.

Which of them are currently subject to mob rule? As the federal government has increased in scope, mob rule has decreased.

Sure, they're the more extreme historical cases, but the point still applies. As far as I can tell, you've either avoided it or written it off with no evidence aside from claiming representative government negates mob rule (rather than enforcing it).

 

[One Brow]

So there's no use without a moral culture? Can't laws be influential enough to either promote advancement or degradation of the culture?

Yes, there is feedback from the laws, when joined by other cultural forces. The laws by themselves don't suffice.

Does a higher level specialization result in higher interdependence or is it a result of higher independence?

Both.

History skews heavily to the side of independence. There's a big difference between choosing to produce and consume and being solely reliant on the production of others. Society has always been dependent on others at one level or another. That's hardly the rationalization you're using it as.

Abandoning governmental oversight in favor of maximal individual responsibility has historically led to the mob rule youseem to be so dead-set against. There has never been a long-term, stable country without a moderately strong central government.

And you're not free if you're a slave to the production of another.

Which is why prior to the ARRA, doctors were not more free. They were dependent on the health insurance companies.

Sure, they're the more extreme historical cases, but the point still applies. As far as I can tell, you've either avoided it or written it off with no evidence aside from claiming representative government negates mob rule (rather than enforcing it).

I'm starting to think you have an unusual definition for "mob rule".

 

[franklin]

Sure, but even the structure of a law will be a reflection of the culture that produces it.

Yes, there is feedback from the laws, when joined by other cultural forces. The laws by themselves don't suffice.

Unfounded blanket claims.

A culture significantly misguided by propaganda will not enact laws that truly reflect its culture.

Both.

This would be a contradictory mechanism. Higher independence >>>causes higher specialization >>>causes higher interdependence >>>destroys independence.

Even if it were true then it would lead to self defeating policy outcomes as higher interdependence destroys specialization. That's regression built into your model.

Abandoning governmental oversight in favor of maximal individual responsibility has historically led to the mob rule youseem to be so dead-set against. There has never been a long-term, stable country without a moderately strong central government.

Agreed. I'm not against a strong central government. I'm against a strong central government becoming the enforcement arm of a mob. You've offered no protection against this. Subjective determination through a popular majority is hardly equal protection; it's enforcement of the will of a mob.

Which is why prior to the ARRA, doctors were not more free. They were dependent on the health insurance companies.

Based solely on your bizarre notion that they're governed by their pocketbooks. Your simplistic example easily applies to the entire working population. Sure, control everyone to ward off your corporate boogie monster.

I'm starting to think you have an unusual definition for "mob rule".

Majority controlling minority. Sorry if this wasn't clear to you. I prefer a government that protects minorities with built in protection mechanisms. You seem to be advocating subversive control of the minorities of your choosing.

 

[One Brow]

A culture significantly misguided by propaganda will not enact laws that truly reflect its culture.

So, you can't trust people to make good decisions because they are easily swayed by propaganda, and your solution is to allow people to make all the decisions?

This would be a contradictory mechanism.

Many claim claim contradictions where they do not exist.

Even if it were true then it would lead to self defeating policy outcomes as higher interdependence destroys specialization. That's regression built into your model.

Why would you think interdepence destroys specialization? Where has that happened?

Subjective determination through a popular majority is hardly equal protection; it's enforcement of the will of a mob.

First, the additional layers that come from having elected representatives, parliamentary procedures, and a culture that supports the rule of law, as well as the laws themselves, largely mutes mob rule.

Second, what is your real-world alternative? History has given us either "mob rule" or tyrants.

Based solely on your bizarre notion that they're governed by their pocketbooks. Your simplistic example easily applies to the entire working population. Sure, control everyone to ward off your corporate boogie monster.

In developed countries, health insurance works better with more government control, while selling shirts works better with less. You seem to be looking for me to apply a beneral principle, but we are again back to "what works better".

Majority controlling minority. Sorry if this wasn't clear to you. I prefer a government that protects minorities with built in protection mechanisms. You seem to be advocating subversive control of the minorities of your choosing.

I prefer such a government as well. However, we have very recent examples in US history alone that show laws are not supported by the culture, they get subverted. The mere existance of a law is not sufficient.

Hoever, mob rule does not merely mean that the majority wins elections. Using it that way casts more heat than light.

 

[franklin]

So, you can't trust people to make good decisions because they are easily swayed by propaganda, and your solution is to allow people to make all the decisions?

How do you miss the point so consistently?

Why would you think interdepence destroys specialization? Where has that happened?

There it is again.

First, the additional layers that come from having elected representatives, parliamentary procedures, and a culture that supports the rule of law, as well as the laws themselves, largely mutes mob rule.

Second, what is your real-world alternative? History has given us either "mob rule" or tyrants.

Checks and balances. Can you seriously be this dense? Short term memory problem? Dutch Jazzer syndrome?

In developed countries, health insurance works better with more government control, while selling shirts works better with less. You seem to be looking for me to apply a beneral principle, but we are again back to "what works better".

According to the W.H.O. and you--both extremely biased. Apples to apples comparisons refute this propaganda.


You continuously refuse to acknowledge issues and bring up questions that have already been answered. I'll accept your tediousness as trolling. You get no overtime.

/thread

 

[One Brow]

How do you miss the point so consistently?

Sorry. Feel free to try again, I'll see what you mean.

Checks and balances.

You mean, like the current US system? If not, what sort of checks and balances? When has such a government been implemented?

Apples to apples comparisons refute this propaganda.

The claimed apples-to-apples comparisons are propaganda. Can you refute supposed propaganda with propaganda?

 

[PearlWatson]

Another federal judge gets it right

https://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/be...ederal-judge-rules-obamacare-unconstitutional

 

[VINYLONE]

I wonder what Kicky thinks...

 

[PearlWatson]

I wonder what Kicky thinks...

I don't.

 

[sirkickyass]

I wonder what Kicky thinks...

Haven't read it yet, although Vinson is a fellow alum.

Surprised they gave this case to a judge on senior status.

 

[UB]

Another federal judge gets it right

https://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/be...ederal-judge-rules-obamacare-unconstitutional

something something...activist judges...something something...legislating from the bench...

 

[VINYLONE]

Haven't read it yet, although Vinson is a fellow alum.

Surprised they gave this case to a judge on senior status.

What does that mean...not the alum part.

 

[sirkickyass]

What does that mean...not the alum part.

He's semi-retired. Those judges usually handle more routine matters and don't take on time-intensive or media pressured case loads because, as it turns out, they're semi-retired.

For some more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_status

 

[VINYLONE]

Then why do you think they gave it to him. I mean the implications of his decision are far reaching are they not?

 

[babe]

something something...activist judges...something something...legislating from the bench...

I've been trying to figure out the video sequence. . . . is that a piccolo? what? is it superglued to the dude's lips? And where is that high-class restaurant with one of the booths converted to a jon? Too many patrons needing to "go"?


OK, about the legislating from the bench thing. That's what a lot of supporters of Obamacare are saying. . . . . funny I bet they don't think so when the judge rules their way. . . .

Under our constitution, we have no one but the Pres who can veto a legislative bill, and no one but the Judicial who can rule on how it conforms to the Constitution. Well, unless you want jury nullification to count. . . .

I agree with the judge.

IMO, I'm not excited about having a government bureaucracy/establishment meddling in my personal life. I don't even like Social Security. I enjoy life where the rubber meets the road and you have to think about what you do and take responsibility for yourself.

So the Pres is gonna have his AG argue that the interstate commerce clause gives the Feds the power to set the price for movies, popcorn, and establish approved movie content too, I see. ICC has been used in the past to give the feds power to dictate what farmers can plant on their own land. . . . . when wheat prices were depressed they argued that since a lot of wheat goes across state lines, and all wheat produced impacts the overall price. . . . .therefore the fed must micromanage everthing for some reason or another.

When I was young I was disabled for a time. I went one time to the SSA and sorta got miffed at the system, and decided it wasn't worth the time to go there anymore. I read a story by Solzhenitsyn about a widow in "Matryona's House" who gave up on waiting for her pension to be approved, and went to the woods and gathered sticks and berries instead, and prospered better than those who waited in the long lines of the gov agencies. . . . .

Frankly, giving the gov the power to weigh in on life and death decisions just scares me spitless.

 

[babe]

Then why do you think they gave it to him. I mean the implications of his decision are far reaching are they not?

I bet all the regular staff didn't want it. I mean, if you have huge career plans ahead of you, you just don't want to get yourself into this one.

 

[LogGrad98]

This is a seriously weird thread. Probably 5 different conversations at one time, only moderately related. This thread should never be allowed to end, by congressional mandate. Would that be constitutional?

 

[sirkickyass]

Then why do you think they gave it to him.

Dude. I'm the one who asked the question. I have no idea.

I mean the implications of his decision are far reaching are they not?

In a practical sense: not really.

Everyone knows this isn't getting resolved at the District Court level no matter which side won and we already had a pre-existing District Split on this exact issue.