Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
You really are clueless if you believe this. Sorry but the truth hurts. You take away profits and incentives which is what WILL happen then there is little room for new medical breakthroughs.Edgray said:
House Passes "Health Care" Bill
- Thread starter Accountable
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
95Replies
-
1KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Speak the truth and then I might know whether it hurts or not. Insult me by calling me clueless and show everyone just how smart you are.
I know exactly what socialism is thanks much. The fact that you can't tell just how far down that path you are is quite telling.
I swear its like the twilight zone. In one breath you Europeans brag about how the gov't provides all these things that people "need" and then in the next you deny you're a socialist.
The guys running the UK now were an avowed socialist party up until about 15 years ago.
Call it what you will, if you pay into a gov't insurance program and then that pays for your care, then the gov't pays for your care. Its all a matter of semantics. Kinda like trying to say I pay for the roads because I pay taxes and the gov't builds roads.
Boy, that sounds an awful lot like a gov't run universal healthcare system. But you guys aren't socialists at all....
Because thus far they have costs under control through rationing of care. Just wait till the budget gets busted. Again you don't have unlimited resources to provide for the unlimited demand.
Any positive right that requires someone else to provide you with something is BS and amoral. Hands down. Socialism relies on positive rights and gov't enforcement of them to function.
We're talking about socialism because you're a bunch of socialists who won't admit to it that want to push you're way off on us.
Social progress my ass.
1. Free public education: Been around since the ink was still wet on the Constitution. Since Marx was just a gleam in his daddy's eye.
Land Ordinance of 1785 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. Universal suffrage: The natural extension of classical liberalism, not socialism
3. 8 hour working day: Seriously? You think you have a right to an 8 hour workday? You have an 8 hour workday because productivity is high enough to allow it. Seriously, ask any farmer how far that "right to an 8 hour workday" goes. :24:
1. King was resisting arrest.
2. The officers were tried on the state level for excessive force and acquitted because of 1.
3. The officers were tried on the federal level for civil rights violations, convicted and served 30 months in prison.
So yeah, you wanna pull up some more meaningless bullshit or continue with the conversation at hand?
Uh no. I seriously don't know where you got this ridiculous idea that my life is in the hands of an insurance company. Myself and my doctor decide what care I need and get. The insurance company may determine that they won't pay based on our mutually agreed upon contract but that does not preclude me from getting care, I just have to pay for it myself.
I'll say again, you DO NOT have a right to have someone else assume your risk and pay your bills.
After your post above, he is speaking the truth. Here's another lesson in applying logic to reality.
1. Insurance adds 6% to our health care costs.
2. The majority of the cost of health care goes to the providers.
3. Therefore, in order to really cut costs, you must pay less to providers. This is the other way in which Europe keeps their costs under control
4. Less money to providers (Doctors, hospitals, pharma) means less money for investment in more training, more and new equipment and capability and new drugs.
Right now, we here in the US pay for the vast majority of the medical innovation of the world. A good example is pharma.
Pfizer alone spends $900 million a MONTH on R&D. Something like 85-90% of new drug sales ie the drugs within patent restrictions that you can sell for the most, happen right here in the US.
So its our money fueling new drug development that you guys then get to piggyback off of.
ETA
Oh, yet another benefit of having a wife who is a Dr. in residency, I get to talk to SOOOO many of the people that come here to study medicine. They don't come here because of the quality of the education, they come here because they have to be trained here to STAY here and they want to STAY here because they can't make make nearly as good a living as a Dr. wherever they came from.
Last edited by a moderator:
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
I put an "IF" in there.
You took the bait.
And proved my point
By the way if you think calling somebody clueless is an insult you have pretty thin skin.
If you want to see insults then keep on posting your statist, socialist loving bull shit and I can ratchet it up a notch
Too bad, it is and always will be. Doctors, nurses, hospitals, drug companies, medical device developers, they all profit now and will continue to profit. As much as the socialists of the world want to make it out to be, profit is NOT evil.
Yes I do. People who are not indigent, finance large expenses every single day of the week. There's nothing that prevents people from doing the same for large medical expenses.
For the people who are indigent and can't do that, we ALREADY provide for them with Medicaid.
Compassion? So now you resort to the tired old "Those poor people argument"? Please! The more people play that ridiculous argument, the less I care.
WTF are you talking about? I know you've been in statist gov'ts for a long time but do you seriously equate a contract mutually agreed upon to gov't edicts carrying the force of law?
Of course there is a choice. If I don't like what my insurance company is doing, and I don't feel its worth my premium, I can go get another one or I can choose to go without, I can start a health savings account to provide for medical needs. I have any number of choices.
You're the one with no real choice, being under the thumb of a gov't.
1. Please stop using studies from the group in Mass that stands to benefit by millions of dollars in a gov't run health care system. They have a vested interest in saying that everything sucks and needs to be rebuilt.
2. That study is complete unadulterated BS.
The Medical Bankruptcy Myth — The American, A Magazine of Ideas
If 85% of your debt is NOT medical bills, then the medical bills aren't you're real problem. In other words, people were already living beyond their means and the medical bills just pushed them over the edge.
Well there goes the "free medical care prevents bankruptcies" myth. :24:
Not on this planet they don't. They do anything but work well.
One more time...
New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage | HarvardScience
Cambridge Health Alliance is losing money left and right. They stand to make a LOT of money in a gov't health care scheme. They have ulterior motives to make things look as bad as humanly possible.
Please stop using studies from a group that has a monetary interest in one outcome or the other.
On top of that, the study is horribly flawed. They followed 9000 people over 10 years in a CDC survey. ~350 died over that time period. ~290 had insurance and about ~60 didn't. They then extrapolated those rates based on an assumed 40 million uninsured in the US to get 45,000.
There was no investigation and normalization for cause of death or level of health care received. They could have all died instantly in car accidents or other sudden death, or received care and just died anyway. If you come down with an inoperable glioblastoma, it doesn't matter how much or what kind of care you get or who pays for it, you're probably gonna die anyway.
It has everything to do with socialism and its disturbing that you won't admit it.
More likely they just won't admit too it because it has a certain stigma. Nevertheless, if you advocate socialist principles, you are in fact a socialist.
Once you get that far to the left, its just a matter of how badly the gov't stomps on your neck, not if they do it. And stomping on necks is exactly what you're doing if you're holding the gun of gov't power to peoples heads to rob them for the benefit of others.
Private options that get you cut off from the system.
Doesn't matter if its 1 million or 1 who disagree. You're being authoritarian when you force them in at gunpoint.
Rich or poor, its about control. To maintain their station, the politicians need control, and thus the gov't needs control. To keep control, they have to keep you dependent. If you are dependent on them for your well being, you are NEVER truly free, you're always subject to their whims and wills.
It is true.
Grandmother dies after NHS cancer treatment is withdrawn because she paid privately for life-extending drug | Mail Online
Banned cancer drugs better than NHS ones - Times Online
Or sometimes they just decide you're life isn't worth it...
Women denied cancer drug that could extend life | Society | The Guardian
But that kinda stuff doesn't happen. Everything is just great. Just sweep those people dead by gov't decision under the rug.
Its not that simple and you are confusing things. I can still get the same level of care whether my insurance pays or not. If I want/need care my insurance doesn't cover, I just have to work out cash payment with my provider.
Don't tell me it can't fucking be done because I HAVE DONE IT, and I did it as a college student making minimum wage, working half time.
I've got a clinic just down on the corner that I can walk in and see the doctor within a half hour, no insurance required. If I'm hurt and go to the emergency room, nobody is going to ask me if I have an insurance card or not until well after I've been taken care of.
No, its none of your business. Hands down. Period. You don't want them "suffering" then fucking come get them. See if you can get them to leave. You can have all you want to try and make their lives "better."
You know that WHO study you posted? The one where the overall ranking can't be used to say socialized systems work better?
Well one of the ranking metrics is responsiveness to patient needs, ie how easily and quickly does the system provide the care that patients need.
WE RANK #1 IN THAT METRIC, ie the BEST. Go ahead and keep trying to deny it and lie to yourself about why anybody in the rest of the world who's able hops a plane to the US to get treatment. Not Europe, not Japan, the US. Even rich Europeans come here for treatment.
No its a matter of good sense saying "The care here sucks, I'm going where its good."
So splain to me how you can be a "social democracy" despite the fact you deny being socialist?
On what fucking planet? 95% of the people in this country are satisfied with the health coverage they have. 95%.
A majority fear being forced out of that coverage.
Fear of Losing Private Health Insurance Trumps 'Public Option' - Rasmussen Reports™
And again a majority believe competition in the free market will do more to better coverage and care than the gov't
Competition Wanted: 65% Favor Removing Anti-Trust Exemption for Health Insurance Companies - Rasmussen Reports™
That "majority" you talk about, only exists in your mind. Not everybody in the world finds sucking at the socialist teat acceptable.
There is NOT ANY OBSTACLE between me and my doctor. NONE. ZERO. NADA. Get that stupid fucking idea out of your head because it IS NOT TRUE. I can go to my doctor at any point I wish without having a bit of insurance.
I CHOOSE to have insurance to reduce my risk in the event of catastrophic events. Its no more of an obstacle than choosing to insure car is an obstacle to getting it repaired if I'm in an accident or insuring my house is an obstacle to getting it rebuilt should it burn down.
As much as you Europeans like to inflate things, you contribute a small fraction of what the US does. IIRC in the last 30 years there were only something like 5 years where the Nobel Prize in medicine wasn't awarded outright or shared by someone from the US.
The only reason you guys get the luxury of paying less than we do, is we're still here to foot the bill for the R&D. You may have some researchers doing some good work, but the money to pay their fucking salary, comes from us, whether you want to believe that or not.
Even then, the vast majority of the R&D, occurs right here in the good old US of A.
But I do believe it to be true - you know that because I said it in the first place! That's why I said you called me that. Which you did, nice try on a recovery though, but kinda backfired there a bit, Einstein.
Ok well...
We seem to have totally slipped off track here now and moved onto a barrage attack about socialism!
Firstly, I'll clear this up: I am indeed a socialist, but I am a libertarian socialist. Like yourselves, I do not like government, or any positions of authority. But we have them, and it'll be a long time until that changes, so we need to make the best of what we have.
But, to call Britain, or any country in Europe "socialist" is so far wide of the mark it is laughable. School kids have a better understanding of socialism than you I'm afraid. Hang on, you're not one of those calling Obama a "communist/fascist/socialist" are you? Those easily interchangeable philosophies!
Yes, the labour party were a party built on SOME (but not all) Socialist principles. They were British socialists though, who would better be described as social democrats, which is what I suppose they have fully turned into now. They were in charge of Britain before the scourge that was Maggie Thatcher and her conservative nightmare, but the UK wasn't a socialist country - it has, and most likely always will be, a capitalist based country, with a few socialist touches, much like the rest of Europe.
Please read "the ragged trousered philanthropists" by Robert Tresell to see what life was like for the average worker BEFORE socialist philosophy gained some ground in the public mind.
I was just following your lead there, dear boy.
At the end of the day, we're running in circles here and I will never convince you, as you will never convince me. I believe we are a people united, clearly you believe the opposite. Until we switch our mentalities, this argument is becoming pointless.
It is reassuring to know that whilst socialism, in it's pure form, is dead, that it's ideals of brotherhood, unity and cooperation live on in the hearts and minds of an increasing number of people. On the issue of healthcare, you are outnumbered, more people want it than don't, because your views are archaic and are holding progress back. Stick with your private insurance, that right hasn't been taken away from anyone, but let others, many of whom are far less fortunate than yourselves, get the helping hand they so desperately need.
Or fuck it, kick 'em whilst their down in true conservative fashion.
So you are, by your own admission, a social anarchist. A Social Libertarian is by a definition anti-government and anti-capitalism. That system equates out to be outright anarchy.
Really? It's laughable to call Portugal socialist? They fully admit that they're a socialist country, and have since 1976. While they're the only European country to admit that they're socialist, the vast majority of European countries have socialistic policies or leanings. If you can't see it, I'm sorry.
The majority of people in the United States do not want Universal Health Care. Go look at the Rasmussen poll that Nova posted. People who cannot afford health care of their own, or do not have it provided to them by their employer, in most cases can qualify for Medicaid, that is what that program is for. My brother and sister-in-law and their kids are on Medical (the California version of Medicaid), they're on it because my brother lost his job and then lost his unemployment benefits because his employer ended up going out of business. Now they're both going to school full-time while he teaches piano to make ends meat. The benefits are there if you choose to take advantage of them.
Also, as Nova has pointed out, you cannot be refused emergency medical treatment regardless of whether or not you are insured. Medical providers are more than willing to work out payment plans for treatments that people cannot afford. Right now I'm paying off physical therapy visits from earlier in the year that weren't covered by my insurance. I had horrible headaches, and the physical therapy largely eliminated them. My insurance didn't cover everything, so I had to pay out of pocket. I made the choice to do so because my health was at stake, and I've been making payments on it ever since. I'm down to about $350 owed right now.
Universal Health Care flies in the face of the United States Constitution, and as such would be in direct violation to it. I feel the same way about Social Security and MediCare. If they feel these programs are so important that they are compulsory, then there needs to be an Amendment to the Constitution. That's the way that it's supposed to work. Congress simply does not have the constitutional authority to mandate universal health care. So excuse me for being a defending of the very principles that this country was founded on.
:24::24::24:
Libertarian socialism? What a fucking crock of shit. A philosophy that REQUIRES everyone to play nice together of their own volition without any outside governing structure. Thats what you call deluded.
School kids, educated by their gov't to be dependent upon and not question their gov't not being taught they're living in a socialist society? Color me shocked. :eek
From their own party constitution...
The current version isn't much better..
Never mind that the advances of the last 250 years that finally allowed for the majority of people to quit scrabbling in the dirt for subsistence, came by and large because of the focus on the primacy of the individual, not touchy feely social bullshit....
You mean when the world was generally poor and working like a dog mean survival? Before we made ourselves rich by working hard so we have the luxury of not working quite so hard?
I'll refrain from reading books by avowed socialists telling how much socialists have "helped" the world. Thanks anyway though.
Which just demonstrates again that reality and reason are lost on the socialists of the world. One day you'll run out of everybody else's money and realize that you can't in fact help everybody to the same life as everyone else.
Only by your definition of progress. What you just said, reinforces in my mind what I've thought for a while. You people will NEVER stop until we're all subjugated under you're authoritarian statist regimes.
You could very well use you're free will to gather up all the like minded people and go form you're own communes where everybody gets what the "need" regardless of what you put in, but no thats not good enough because the people willing to do that tend to be the worthless feckless leaches of the world. You know that and so you realize the only way to get the "utopia" you want is to force the rest of us into it at gunpoint.
In those terms modern liberalism/socialism is a fucking disease on this planet that could well stand to be eradicated.
In fact, it probably will be when you guys can no longer leach any more off the success of the free world and the inevitable collapse comes. See how well you can get people to "play nice" and "help their fellow man" when they're fucking starving....
You don't fucking read worth a damn do you? We already have that its called Medicaid. Here you go, you can go read about it
Medicaid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Taking over the entire health care system is not helping the less fortunate, its just an increase in gov't power. Plain and simple.
Oh piss off. Nobody is kicking anybody when they're down. Excuse the fuck outta me for believing that the liberty of the individual trumps the "needs" of society. What you espouse is nothing more than wholesale subjugation.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
I couldn't care less that a foreign member doesn't like the majority opinion here. If everyone's through having fun running in useless circles, I'd like to get back to the subject of this thread. Has anyone found out what the extra 800 or so pages contains?
Interesting and massively incorrect points you both raised there. Let's have a look.
If you had any idea what a socialist society might look like, you'd know that yes, even Portugal is NOT a socialist country. Socialism, for a start, demands direct democracy, which Portugal does not have. Socialism can not exist with a private banking industry, which Portugal has. Socialism also cannot exist with any privately owned means of production, which Portugal has. From your right-wing perspective, sure, countries in Europe may have socialist leanings, but that does not make them socialist countries.
Well it's not actually. If you think about it, the freedom you so desperately grasp onto isn't freedom at all because you cannot have freedom without equality. When there isn't equality, there's subjugation, something which capitalism relies on entirely. Libertarian socialism is based on the belief that humans can only be free when they're completely equal. The governing structure in a Libertarian Socialist society is the people themselves. Is that not what you're after? Less government? You seem very confused - you hate the very governmental systems you think are absolutely necessary.
That just shows complete and utter ignorance to the structure of British society. The teachers, and their union, are in constant battles with the government. Margaret Thatcher did more to try and control what was being taught than any other leader and failed dismally. Students in the UK, much like most other countries, are encouraged to question their government. You seem to be under the impression the UK is some kind of communist dictatorship like Russia or Cuba, when people in the UK are as equally free as citizens of the US.
Not at all. Social awareness brought in those changes, and that social awareness came from the leftists, not from the conservatives. Conservatism is primarily concerned with conserving things as they are. The individual had no power, it was when they united that the power came.
Its an old book, from the early 20th century that is not only a vital piece of socialist thought, and also a great record of what life was like in England during that era, but it is also a fantastic novel. If you enjoy reading, don't dismiss it just because you might not agree with some of the philosophy inside it. It comes from a time when socialist philosophy has not long been born, mentions nothing about how it helped the world.
Far from it. Socialism is a philosophy based entirely on reason. If you knew anything, you'd know that it has it's roots in the Enlightenment. It's conservatism that has no grounds in reason, in fact, it flies in the face of reason. Conservatism is based on conserving traditional practices. In other words, it's anti progression. So by taking that to it's logical conclusion, if our ancestors were all conservatives we would still be in a feudal situation, subjugated to unelected rulers.
Everyone else's money? What on Earth?!!! Beyond hilarious!
Well progress would mean moving forward with change. That's the same for anyone. As for subjugated, socialism wouldn't be an authoritarian regime, it would be a system built by the citizens, controlled by the citizens, subjugated to no one.
Out of interest, would you rather than be subjugated (which we all are in one way or another) by a government and a civil system you choose and run, or by private interests, who see you as nothing more than a slave?
But when most people have social leanings, why would we need to go form communes? In Europe, and the US, portions of socialist thought have been included into our systems because the people want it that way. Conservatives are a dying breed my friend. It's the conservatives that will have to leave and go form their own little capitialist societies where they can enjoy their inequality in their exploitative system.
Socialism can nicely be defined as equal pay for equal work. Socialism demands contribution from all, and doesn't have time for leeches. You know, those leeches like bankers, share holders, stock traders, those people that contribute nothing and take so much from the working man. So don't talk about leaching until you understand who the true leeches are in society.
Yes, let's go back to the times when the privileged few controlled the masses, workers had no rights whatsoever. Let's go back to a time when working men could barely afford to feed their family. Ace!
Leech off the success of the free world??!!! We're part of the free world! We helped create the free world! Are you mad? That's the most idiotic thing you've said so far my friend. Well done and top marks to you, sir!!
Also, is that like the recent collapse caused by unbridled capitalism and unelected people with far too much power created by the system you love so much? That kind of collapse? Yes, free market capitalism works!! Who suffered? Not the people responsible, thats for sure.
?????
Actually, why don't you read it? You really need to. It's NOT universal coverage, there are many qualification points meaning people fall through this system. It helps for sure, but it's incomplete. Plain and simple.
Actually, yes you are kicking people when they're down. Have some compassion man, compassion for those less fortunate than you. Empathy and compassion are traits that separate us from other animals. Shame so many people like yourself are lacking in these qualities.
As for the liberty of the individual, liberty of the individual cannot exist without equality. Equality cannot exist with subjugation. Monetary subjugation is one of the building blocks of capitalism. So you can rattle on as much as you want about the liberty of the individual as you want, but its irrelevant because it cannot exist when people are essentially slaves to the capitalist profit machine.
If you had any idea what a socialist society might look like, you'd know that yes, even Portugal is NOT a socialist country. Socialism, for a start, demands direct democracy, which Portugal does not have. Socialism can not exist with a private banking industry, which Portugal has. Socialism also cannot exist with any privately owned means of production, which Portugal has. From your right-wing perspective, sure, countries in Europe may have socialist leanings, but that does not make them socialist countries.
Well it's not actually. If you think about it, the freedom you so desperately grasp onto isn't freedom at all because you cannot have freedom without equality. When there isn't equality, there's subjugation, something which capitalism relies on entirely. Libertarian socialism is based on the belief that humans can only be free when they're completely equal. The governing structure in a Libertarian Socialist society is the people themselves. Is that not what you're after? Less government? You seem very confused - you hate the very governmental systems you think are absolutely necessary.
That just shows complete and utter ignorance to the structure of British society. The teachers, and their union, are in constant battles with the government. Margaret Thatcher did more to try and control what was being taught than any other leader and failed dismally. Students in the UK, much like most other countries, are encouraged to question their government. You seem to be under the impression the UK is some kind of communist dictatorship like Russia or Cuba, when people in the UK are as equally free as citizens of the US.
Not at all. Social awareness brought in those changes, and that social awareness came from the leftists, not from the conservatives. Conservatism is primarily concerned with conserving things as they are. The individual had no power, it was when they united that the power came.
Its an old book, from the early 20th century that is not only a vital piece of socialist thought, and also a great record of what life was like in England during that era, but it is also a fantastic novel. If you enjoy reading, don't dismiss it just because you might not agree with some of the philosophy inside it. It comes from a time when socialist philosophy has not long been born, mentions nothing about how it helped the world.
Far from it. Socialism is a philosophy based entirely on reason. If you knew anything, you'd know that it has it's roots in the Enlightenment. It's conservatism that has no grounds in reason, in fact, it flies in the face of reason. Conservatism is based on conserving traditional practices. In other words, it's anti progression. So by taking that to it's logical conclusion, if our ancestors were all conservatives we would still be in a feudal situation, subjugated to unelected rulers.
Everyone else's money? What on Earth?!!! Beyond hilarious!
Well progress would mean moving forward with change. That's the same for anyone. As for subjugated, socialism wouldn't be an authoritarian regime, it would be a system built by the citizens, controlled by the citizens, subjugated to no one.
Out of interest, would you rather than be subjugated (which we all are in one way or another) by a government and a civil system you choose and run, or by private interests, who see you as nothing more than a slave?
But when most people have social leanings, why would we need to go form communes? In Europe, and the US, portions of socialist thought have been included into our systems because the people want it that way. Conservatives are a dying breed my friend. It's the conservatives that will have to leave and go form their own little capitialist societies where they can enjoy their inequality in their exploitative system.
Socialism can nicely be defined as equal pay for equal work. Socialism demands contribution from all, and doesn't have time for leeches. You know, those leeches like bankers, share holders, stock traders, those people that contribute nothing and take so much from the working man. So don't talk about leaching until you understand who the true leeches are in society.
Yes, let's go back to the times when the privileged few controlled the masses, workers had no rights whatsoever. Let's go back to a time when working men could barely afford to feed their family. Ace!
Leech off the success of the free world??!!! We're part of the free world! We helped create the free world! Are you mad? That's the most idiotic thing you've said so far my friend. Well done and top marks to you, sir!!
Also, is that like the recent collapse caused by unbridled capitalism and unelected people with far too much power created by the system you love so much? That kind of collapse? Yes, free market capitalism works!! Who suffered? Not the people responsible, thats for sure.
?????
Actually, why don't you read it? You really need to. It's NOT universal coverage, there are many qualification points meaning people fall through this system. It helps for sure, but it's incomplete. Plain and simple.
Actually, yes you are kicking people when they're down. Have some compassion man, compassion for those less fortunate than you. Empathy and compassion are traits that separate us from other animals. Shame so many people like yourself are lacking in these qualities.
As for the liberty of the individual, liberty of the individual cannot exist without equality. Equality cannot exist with subjugation. Monetary subjugation is one of the building blocks of capitalism. So you can rattle on as much as you want about the liberty of the individual as you want, but its irrelevant because it cannot exist when people are essentially slaves to the capitalist profit machine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Accountable
Well-Known Member
Ed, since this conversation is not the comparison/contrast of the European model vs our model, but rather the "healthcare" bill recently passed by the US House of Representatives, do you have any specific comments that might be on the subject?
Accountable
Well-Known Member
Well actually I've got a question about how it's being paid for.
Clearly this bill is going to take some serious funding to firstly set up and then manage and maintain.
How is that tax going to be raised? Is it via income tax? Is it a percentage of the person's income? Or a flat rate?
The newest I've seen that's being considered is raising the payroll taxes on people who make over $250000 a year. What's crazy is they've passed this before they've decided how to pay for it. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
No, you're the incorrect one
Do yourself a favor and go read the Constitution of Portugal, thanks.
No, you're the one that is confused. Socialistic Libertarianism is by very definition Anarchy. Another way of phrasing that term is socialist anarchism. Hell, they're even used interchangeably. So it sounds as though you're the one who is very confused. I'm a Libertarian, I believe in government, but the barest amount of government possible. The United States federal government has specific roles attached to it by the Constitution, any extension beyond those powers specifically granted it by the Constitution is by definition unconstitutional. Which means that if something is considered to important that the government should be in charge of it or create a new program for it, then there needs to be a constitutional amendment. I don't hate the governmental system that I think is absolutely necessary, I hate the expansion of government beyond what is absolutely necessary. That is what a true Libertarian is. While a Libertarian Socialist is after pure rule by the people with no governing body, which is by definition anarchism, where there is no higher power or rule of law.
Yeah, that seems to be the logical way to approach it...
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members