Comments by
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on May 3 at 7:15 p.m.Suggest removal
These are my last posts. I am extremely busy with school this week so if you want to continue the argument contact me through OU Daily web site and we can arrange a personal meeting time that suits my schedule.
I am somewhat skeptical of the timing of the posts to my response and the fact that nobody hardly ever posts on the weekends to an article. I posted perhaps more controversial claims on two other articles on Friday and got no response. Also, I am being badgered by the author through email to meet with him in person. So, it wouldn’t surprise me if he had friends come and save his ego in the article forum. Amazing how nobody posted about how great this article was before I posted. Who in the world gets up early on Saturday to see who posted on an OU Daily article? Impatient with ignorance went out of his way to praise Jacob in his opening sentence. Why? My response questioned nothing about his personal character, but merely the lack of reasoned argument. If you think an argument that relies on merely the efficiency of a position and an appeal to personal experience is a “thoughtful, persuasive, and very well-written article”, then I have am somewhat skeptical of your reasoning capacity. There are a lot better arguments for universal health care and this article wasn’t even close to a good argument. I realize that I am probably talking to friends of Jacob but I am going to cross my fingers and assume I am not and post my response.
I am going to make this a short as possible because of my limited time. I will be referring you to many websites to shrink the size of the text in my response. Again, contact me if you need clarification.
I would like to refer you to two web articles, the first on the pros and cons of universal health care:
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/unive...
Here is an alternative to universal health care that I mostly support:
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/edito...
First, the efficiency assumption. What is meant by efficiency? Objective comparison of the system or subjective testimonials? Where is this empirical evidence? Do you realize the confounding variables? Do you realize that we cannot run a controlled experiment to figure out which side is right? That means even the empirical data will be very limited in drawing conclusions about what actually works. There are so many confounding variables and also the impossibility of a controlled experiment.
Even if I grant that government mandated health care is more efficient that doesn’t justify it. I could argue that the government could mandate killing everyone who didn’t have a job by the end of the month. Amazingly, we would have record unemployment numbers. The morality of the action has to be answered no matter what the answer is the efficiency question. I mean you don’t believe we are machines and that efficiency is all that matters?
Posted on May 1 at 6:01 p.m.Suggest removal
Awesome argumentative strategy. We should immediately change our system because a few people are having problems with the system. I'm totally convinced. We should blindy accept similiar European systems because they are supposedly more effecient. Never mind the constitutional issues, tax issues, or moral problems involved in this plan. Let's just make snap judgements about how to run a country based on a few personal stories.
Posted on May 1 at 5:54 p.m.Suggest removal
The federal government has bribed the states for years. This isn't free money. There are major stipulations to how this money is spent. It's nice to se a politician thinking about the long term consequences of a bail out. Of course the ignorant masses including the OU Daily criticize somebody who doesn't want to take bribes. Since when did thinking about the long term effects of legislation become "political grandstanding"? It takes a lot of guts to turn down supposedly free money. I think the Daily should be writing about the courageous stand this politician is taking, instead they take the position that we should take someone's money and not think about the moral or long term effects of the descion. I guess we should only base our descions on instant gratifications. Sounds good to me.
Posted on May 1 at 1 p.m.Suggest removal
Your argument is extremely weak and it starts from the beginning. The Revolutionary War is a prime example of not compromising our principles. A small minority of people realized that revolution was necessary to protect our rights as people. What you fail to realize is that it was a propaganda war that convinced enough people in the middle to accept revolution. There was no compromise. How can there be a compromise between revolting against Britain and not revolting against Britain? Terrible start to an article about compromise.
Another glaring weakness is the mechanism for this compromise. This always entails interventionism which is not a neutral process. Some are thrilled that our country is not extremely socialist or extremely capitalist. We put restraints on the free market because compromise is good and more desirable than following a complete ideology. The major problem with this thinking is that compromise is more detrimental to capitalistic ideology than socialist ideology. Government interventionism is anti-capitalism and is welcomed by socialism and communism. So in effect with compromise you just get a milder form of socialism. When the government intervenes in the market by the guise of compromise it actually isn’t compromising between the two ideologies. It is de facto accepting the interventionist tenet of socialism and communism.
It would have been nice if you could comprehend the anti-compromising position the Founding Fathers took when they revolted against England and applied it to our modern day politics. Compromise is the disguise of mild socialism and not the great thing it is made out to be. In some respects compromise is more dangerous than polarization because the ignorant middle cannot make the connection that compromise is not neutral and always favors bigger government. So we creep along the path to socialism because compromise is falsely believed to be the way to settle the capitalist/socialist controversy.
Posted on January 31 at 2:55 a.m.Suggest removal
LOL... not sure what moderating a depression really means? If moderating means expanding government power with tons of government programs I guess FDR was a genius. You didn't say but you should have that WW2 is the major reason why we overcame our depression not FDR's fiscal policies. So the proof for FDR's success is the fact that a majority of people voted him in a few times. This is part of the reason that the founding fathers set up a REPUBLIC and not a DEMOCRACY. They didn't trust the ignorance and gullibility of the masses.
And you are part of the problem if you think that these solutions are not realistic because they don't fit neatly into the democrat/republican talking points. That's a great attitude to have - change can't happen becuase we only have a two party system. I'm glad you weren't around when we won our freedom from the Brittish because realistically we no chance to defeat the most powerful country on Earth at that time.
You honestly believe that Social Security and Medicare enhance individual freedom? And these freedoms are real because a huge percentage say so? Thats a good argument.
In the meantime, go ahead and stand out on a huge limb and defend the status quo and the democratic/republican talking points. How brave of you.
Posted on January 31 at 2:28 a.m.Suggest removal
You had me until you went the racist route. A lot of asserting and selective characterizations in this article but hardly any evidence.
What about diplomacy with this so called tryant that is Israel? If they are so bad than why not negotiate with them? I'll bet you support diplomacy with terrorist backing states like Syria and Iran. So we can talk to them but not Israel.
Since you are a writer and such an intellectual giant I'm disappointed that you are so single-minded on this issue.
Posted on December 4 at 10:49 a.m.Suggest removal
Stephen, I agree with your sentiment that you are basing your political opinion not based on your religion. However, I would like to introduce another minority of thinkers and that is being both anti-gay marriage and atheist/agnostic. I think that many atheists/agnostics are more dogmatic than religious people, especially on political issues. It is very easy to lump everyone that is against gay-marriage as right-wing, which couldn't be further from the truth. When people do that they do not have to answer the merits of the issue and this trend disturbs me. I am like you, I do not let my religious ideas (my atheism) sway my political ideas. I think gay marriage is wrong both morally and politically and I am not religious at all.
Posted on November 20 at 12:10 p.m.Suggest removal
Wow the "our view" actually makes logical sense. I'm in total shock. Maybe the cold weather has some of them thinking more clearly.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on May 3 at 7:18 p.m.Suggest removal
That was the brunt of the Jacob’s article. Efficiency is all that matters. Morality and ideologies be damned. I hope someone who is impatient with ignorance would be able to make the logical connection there. A very presumptuous screen name indeed. Since you clearly have no clue about the morality of Jacob’s argument, it looks like I’m the one who is impatient with ignorance and I simply don’t have the time to enlighten you.
Now, onto the three issues I mentioned.
Constitutional Issues: I will refer you to the actual US Constitution. Nowhere does it say we have a right to healthcare. The tenth amendment tells us what to do about cases that the Constitution does not explicitly state are rights. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the states”. Now, this means there are constitutional issues with universal health care. In fact if the state of Oklahoma wanted to create a state healthcare plan this would get around the 10th amendment issue, granted the state of Oklahoma doesn’t violate the other parts of the Constitution while implementing its plan.
Tax Issues: I personally believe their needs to be a very strong argument in using force to take people’s money to pay for someone else’s issues. If a really am a free agent than I should have the ability to choose whether I help someone or not. I not against taxes per se, but I am against income taxes. Sales taxes and excise taxes are legitimate in my opinion.
Moral Issues: My concern here is with the method of creating a government mandated health care system. If this is implemented I have no free choice to object to it. If the plan was implemented voluntarily I wouldn’t have as much a problem with it. I will refer you to an excellent article on immorality of positions like universal health care. Notice it was nothing to do with common public goods:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/moly...
I have a lot more to say on these issues but this is a great start for you. It saddens me that you are not even aware of issues I mentioned earlier, even if you disagree with them. If you are really interested in the issues and need further assistance or clarification of one of the arguments, let me know.
On