I disagree with this guy; you don't need free will to function properly, just like plants and animals and machines don't need free will and still function properly. I believe in the free market, but because it is natural, not because I want to do what I want (even though I do).
It's possible to support human rights whether or not you believe in God. I don't think it has to be "because of" or "despite."
BiggsReport wrote, ""If there is no objective truth, and one human is not a rational creature, the argument for individualism breaks down."
Humans can be irrational, and some YouTube debates prove many of us are, but that still doesn't mean we should be enslaved to the state. After all, the politicians who would have control are humans, too, not superior beings.
Of course that's possible. It's possible for a gay man to be a conservative Republican (I've met one or two), it's possible for a catholic to support abortion (there are plenty), for a Jew to hate Israel (lots of those); the point is; there are certain natural political outcomes to philosophical systems.
The philosophy of bureaucracy developed in the 19th century was for it to be a politically neutral body of experts, bereft of all normal human frailties. Those who wrote bureaucratic theory...
...thought that they could best mitigate the natural weaknesses of man by creating a "perfect machine" that would make decisions effectively by itself (almost the 19th century version of a computer). The goal was to take the final decision away from a subjective, weak, frail human being, and place it into the "rational" hands of a system; effectively a computer made up of a lot of regulations and bureaucrats. A lot of philosophical writing was done about this in Germany...
...That attitude persists. I disagree with the entire premise. I believe that man is not irrational; that he can make objectively good decisions. I believe in objective truth, and that an individual human should be sovereign and has unalienable rights. Liberty is to me not just a catch phrase, because I know it is grounded in the idea that I am capable of making objectively good decisions by myself, without recourse to the great bureaucratic computer in the sky.
...if you want to google something on this; I'm thinking of Max Weber's writings. There were a few other prominent writers on Bureaucratic theory in the 19th century, but it's been a while since I was tested on that for my poli-sci degree
But I'm an atheist, and I don't believe that men are sheep who deserve to be slaves of the state. Even if it turns out we are a "collection of chemicals," I believe we have the right to our own lives and that slavery is immoral, whether it is to a master or to the government.
Also, if man is not rational, then the death panels and experts in Washington, being made up of men, wouldn't be rational either.
No, panels of experts wouldn't be perfectly rational, but the best we could achieve toward something resembling "objectivity" in the absence of objectivity would be a consensus of experts.
I am glad that you do hold to the idea of human rights, though there is the possibility that you do despite atheism, rather than because of it.
Remember, if there is no objective truth, and one human is not a rational creature, the argument for individualism breaks down.
I think my pets would do a better job of deciding health care choices than a "Board of Heath Care Commissioners;" seriously, all who still believe in LIBERTY should flush this bill and send it to where it belongs, in the sewer system.
fantastic video = ........to be on Obama Care for a senior is now to face "cuts" and to have to be counseled by a = "Health Choices Commisioner" ....do you think that counseling will result in Gammie being told to keep taking the 20 pills that are keeping her alive? NOPE!.......and your pretty birdies small bird brain seems to have been listening to every word of your discussion - I nominate that BIRD for "Health Czar" and it will work CHEAP and can be taught to say YES! to Gammie getting =HELP
Do I have an immortal soul? Do I have free will...? I wonder these things lots of times during a day. I believe that human's do have free will and I don't know or care about whether or not we have immortal souls. I'll wait to address that when I die.
I DO know that I DO NOT WANT Obamacare. Socialism is an oppressive way to live and should be destroyed. Let's all go back to the way the founding fathers would want.
Since I cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, the argument is invalid. So which premise is false? I suppose you could assume that I am lying about one of my statements. More likely than not, you should have claimed something along the lines of "You believe X or you do not believe X" (Qv~Q.)
Oh hello; sorry I didn't get to you earlier. Looks like you actually know something about symbolic logic. Excellent.
Unfortunately, your argument falls apart because you are assuming the necessary claim on my part. I never said ALL people who support socialized health care are X and ALL people who don't are Y. That would be a very stupid assertion. Thus, you have no argument.
It is a fallacy to assume what you need to be true in order to disprove something.
What I actually DID say was that these two philosophies; that of irrational man and that of rational man, are the ideological roots of the two sides in this wider debate over the role of government.
What you personally believe is irrelevant. I am talking about the history of ideas. Philosophy influences politics, and people take their politics for granted. It is common to have a philosophy and personal politics that are at odds with one another at a basic level; I never said everyone is logical.
I do not fit any of your two classes since I am not in favor of this plan and do not think free will is coherent. Since you have stated that all existent people fit in to one of two classifications and I fit into neither, I do not exist.
Prop1:E (Proven by the fact that I typed this.)
Prop2:E⊃(AvB) (Your claim.)
Prop3:~(AvB) (Neither of your belief sets describe me.)
People in Europe who rely on the FDA to tell them if a drug is safe and rely on US developed drugs every day saying US health care is too expensive is like them saying we spend too much on our military... while a US air base defends German sovereignty at American taxpayer expense! Can you say hypocricy?
I like the question of what we are, but I do not accept it affects healthcare, nor the points made about the UK system. While it is true that 'NICE' (the org that decides a certain amount of clinical practice standards) has rejected several medicines as subsidized on the health system, and has had problems over certain care including in psychiatric treatment, where they have pushed for less medicines, and in Alzheimers, where they initially rejected an impressive drug, until it was shown to
'pay for itself' by keeping people able to work for 2-3 years longer, it is no different in the USA in any case. Insurance companies try to push certain things, medical companies try to push certain medicines. The 'panel of experts' mentioned is more in existence in the US, where vague insurance policies mean an 'expert' has to accept or reject a claim, or because, by definition, all doctors are the experts who judge whether you need a medicine, whether you can cope with stronger doses etc..
No, sorry, in the USA, there are about 2000 insurance companies competing with one another. Competition is limited by too many government regulations and regional limits on competition across state lines, but if one insurance company decides not to cover you, you do have options, also you can just buy anything you want with your own money. Australia and the UK both restrict things you can buy with your own money if they are not available in the health basket because of "fairness" issues.
I will give you an example. Someone close to me died abroad. (South America). We (since we're from the UK) had "BUPA" (UK private health insurance) insurance, which included foreign trips. They passed the hefty bill to their "US sister company". First thing they said to the doctor? "You should not have treated her, we will give you no more than 10 percent"... a bureaucrat profit-driven rejected that left us with the bill, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS MONTHS AFTER THE TREATMENT (very unprofessional!).
On the other hand, if the government in the UK rejects your request for a drug or treatment (as has occurred in some well publicized cases over there), you have no recourse except to sue your own government (as has indeed happened). They also restrict what drugs are allowed to be sold in the country not just based on safety (as the USA), but also on cost; so if it is marginally more effective but more expensive, it will not be available... in many cases even if you want to buy it on your own.
What do you mean? You can always get a prescription and buy it yourself! It's just the full rate, not subsidized. That was the problem with NICE, they rejected a few and many people could not afford them at full price. But you can always get them.
Eventually, under pressure and threats from us, as well, they agreed on reduced settlement with the doctor. However the whole process was traumatic, horrible. We were fearing bankrupcy, months of stress and pain, all this just a couple of months after a massive personal tragedy.
I'm not "pro or against" the Obama plan, I am just highlighting it is far from simple and often painful and wrong. There are MANY MANY (legitimate) complaints about the NHS. However at least things like this dont happen
My friend, the problem isn't number of insurance companies, it's the vague cover, it's the lack of cover if you have preexisting problems... the difficulty of a former cancer patient, the difficulty of a diabetic. I don't know the details, but I know there are many problems.
Furthermore, it's a bit late to change company only AFTER finding out they reject treatment you were initially under the complete impression they would never reject when you signed up...
But don't you see; EVERY single government controlled health care monopoly on the planet makes a decision in the case of terminally ill or elderly patients based on a bureaucratic formula whether they will be allowed to live or die. On the other hand; in a purely free market, the most vital necessity of life (food) takes on such a multiplicity of form as to fit any type of person and any kind of budget. The free market will create a plan for cancer patients, diabetics, etc if you just let it.
Do a search for Barbara Wagner in Oregon. That video says it all.
The government denies care to protect it's budget; the private company gives her drugs for free because it is good free advertising for their product. Government health care 0, selfish capitalists 1.
I will check the video. But please my friend give me your thoughts on the following:
Private insurance healthcare in the US has led to health costing the US about 200 percent what it costs in the UK for the NHS, and thats with over 10 percent of the US not being covered (eg 90 percent of population costs 200 percent of the money per capita GDP). What happens with the issue of health care spending? Is it out of control? What can you do? After all, Americans life expectancy is less than brits..
And what are the limitations on the market? What do you do with the problems? Of people finding out they were not insured for a transplant, or not insured for certain conditions under certain circumstances... it's a bit late for them to change policy is it not? Is that not more or less the same as deciding their death (or if they are luckier a life of suffering without the ability to pay for treatment)? As I said I'm not pro/against market health, just raising questions about its track record..
Before you start talking about health care costs in the USA being too high compared to the rest of the world; you have to understand that 90% of ALL new drugs in the World for the past generation have come out of the USA, paid for by US consumers. WE cover the cost of YOUR R&D. It gets better. The UK relies on the US FDA to determine what is a safe and unsafe drug, so does Australia and over a dozen other countries. We pay for that too. As for uncovered areas... 80% of the uninsured in the USA..
...are young men between the ages of 18 and 35. They are generally young and healthy and do not have insurance because they don't feel they need it. They have the option not to buy something they do not use; which is more freedom than you have in Europe. Americans can and do buy healthcare on a per-item basis and can do so up to ANY item you can imagine. People come from all over the world to get a single item (like a heart transplant) here, because the best technology and doctors in the world..
... are here. If you look at the quantities of people turned down flat in the USA, and who cannot get anything from any insurance company; you will find a HIGHER percentage of citizens in the UK turned down for some treatment (or more likely simply told to wait years until they are likely to die and remove themselves as a cost to the taxpayer) than those turned down here. FURTHER private companies in the USA< like the drug maker in the video about the Oregon woman will provide treatment free..
For reasons of good public relations, which is something the vaunted NHS has only begun to care about very recently indeed, but which ANY private company must take into account. It is simply impossible as a private firm, no matter how big, to be as heartless as a government, as Nike found out with the sweatshops issue. If it gets out that somebody was denied coverage and died, and it gets into the news, the company will lose customers. Government never does.
We have lower life expectancy than Brits do right? Have you ever considered the fact that Americans spend on average about twice as much time driving cars as Brits do? We spend about a quarter of our entire lives driving. In California, it is normal to drive 6 hours a day to and from work. This is a BIG, spread-out country. Guess what the most dangerous form of modern transportation is? Driving. Nothing to do with your health care system, it is called lifestyle.
If fthe illusion of free will did not exist, then we would all be lying on the ground starving and suffocating.
htiberian 4 months ago
I disagree with this guy; you don't need free will to function properly, just like plants and animals and machines don't need free will and still function properly. I believe in the free market, but because it is natural, not because I want to do what I want (even though I do).
htiberian 4 months ago
It's possible to support human rights whether or not you believe in God. I don't think it has to be "because of" or "despite."
BiggsReport wrote, ""If there is no objective truth, and one human is not a rational creature, the argument for individualism breaks down."
Humans can be irrational, and some YouTube debates prove many of us are, but that still doesn't mean we should be enslaved to the state. After all, the politicians who would have control are humans, too, not superior beings.
caraclaudel 2 years ago
Of course that's possible. It's possible for a gay man to be a conservative Republican (I've met one or two), it's possible for a catholic to support abortion (there are plenty), for a Jew to hate Israel (lots of those); the point is; there are certain natural political outcomes to philosophical systems.
The philosophy of bureaucracy developed in the 19th century was for it to be a politically neutral body of experts, bereft of all normal human frailties. Those who wrote bureaucratic theory...
BiggsReport 2 years ago
...thought that they could best mitigate the natural weaknesses of man by creating a "perfect machine" that would make decisions effectively by itself (almost the 19th century version of a computer). The goal was to take the final decision away from a subjective, weak, frail human being, and place it into the "rational" hands of a system; effectively a computer made up of a lot of regulations and bureaucrats. A lot of philosophical writing was done about this in Germany...
BiggsReport 2 years ago
...That attitude persists. I disagree with the entire premise. I believe that man is not irrational; that he can make objectively good decisions. I believe in objective truth, and that an individual human should be sovereign and has unalienable rights. Liberty is to me not just a catch phrase, because I know it is grounded in the idea that I am capable of making objectively good decisions by myself, without recourse to the great bureaucratic computer in the sky.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
...if you want to google something on this; I'm thinking of Max Weber's writings. There were a few other prominent writers on Bureaucratic theory in the 19th century, but it's been a while since I was tested on that for my poli-sci degree
BiggsReport 2 years ago
Interesting theory and nicely stated.
But I'm an atheist, and I don't believe that men are sheep who deserve to be slaves of the state. Even if it turns out we are a "collection of chemicals," I believe we have the right to our own lives and that slavery is immoral, whether it is to a master or to the government.
Also, if man is not rational, then the death panels and experts in Washington, being made up of men, wouldn't be rational either.
caraclaudel 2 years ago
No, panels of experts wouldn't be perfectly rational, but the best we could achieve toward something resembling "objectivity" in the absence of objectivity would be a consensus of experts.
I am glad that you do hold to the idea of human rights, though there is the possibility that you do despite atheism, rather than because of it.
Remember, if there is no objective truth, and one human is not a rational creature, the argument for individualism breaks down.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
wise as handsome:)
77Merav 2 years ago
Good job with your factual video. Really,
I think my pets would do a better job of deciding health care choices than a "Board of Heath Care Commissioners;" seriously, all who still believe in LIBERTY should flush this bill and send it to where it belongs, in the sewer system.
ScarlettKnights 2 years ago 2
fantastic video = ........to be on Obama Care for a senior is now to face "cuts" and to have to be counseled by a = "Health Choices Commisioner" ....do you think that counseling will result in Gammie being told to keep taking the 20 pills that are keeping her alive? NOPE!.......and your pretty birdies small bird brain seems to have been listening to every word of your discussion - I nominate that BIRD for "Health Czar" and it will work CHEAP and can be taught to say YES! to Gammie getting =HELP
memama2 2 years ago
Praise The LORD, Thy GOD!
Jesus Christ! our Only LORD & SAVIOR!
NOT! osamabama, The Lier & Thief!
he'll Lead you to HELL & Inslavement!
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!
Just like the Bird, unchain Him.
He might stay?
Or Fly Away, or be "ON THE ROAD AGAIN"
DEO VINDICE!
RebelStangII 2 years ago
Do I have an immortal soul? Do I have free will...? I wonder these things lots of times during a day. I believe that human's do have free will and I don't know or care about whether or not we have immortal souls. I'll wait to address that when I die.
I DO know that I DO NOT WANT Obamacare. Socialism is an oppressive way to live and should be destroyed. Let's all go back to the way the founding fathers would want.
DarkWarrior450 2 years ago
Since I cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, the argument is invalid. So which premise is false? I suppose you could assume that I am lying about one of my statements. More likely than not, you should have claimed something along the lines of "You believe X or you do not believe X" (Qv~Q.)
eatenmyeyes 2 years ago
Oh hello; sorry I didn't get to you earlier. Looks like you actually know something about symbolic logic. Excellent.
Unfortunately, your argument falls apart because you are assuming the necessary claim on my part. I never said ALL people who support socialized health care are X and ALL people who don't are Y. That would be a very stupid assertion. Thus, you have no argument.
It is a fallacy to assume what you need to be true in order to disprove something.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
What I actually DID say was that these two philosophies; that of irrational man and that of rational man, are the ideological roots of the two sides in this wider debate over the role of government.
What you personally believe is irrelevant. I am talking about the history of ideas. Philosophy influences politics, and people take their politics for granted. It is common to have a philosophy and personal politics that are at odds with one another at a basic level; I never said everyone is logical.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
Also, if you could address the second matter of my first post, it would be greatly appreciated.
eatenmyeyes 2 years ago
0:30 "Because you see, there are two sides and this ideology boils down to which of those sides you fall into."
Please clarify what you meant by this.
eatenmyeyes 2 years ago
Regarding the first point in my prior post:
I do not fit any of your two classes since I am not in favor of this plan and do not think free will is coherent. Since you have stated that all existent people fit in to one of two classifications and I fit into neither, I do not exist.
Prop1:E (Proven by the fact that I typed this.)
Prop2:E⊃(AvB) (Your claim.)
Prop3:~(AvB) (Neither of your belief sets describe me.)
Conclusion1: ~E Modus Tollens
Conclusion2: E&~E Addition
eatenmyeyes 2 years ago
Firstly, you seem to be presenting a false dichotomy.
Secondly, please provide a coherent account of free will that explains the mechanism by which choice is possible (given a causal universe.)
Third, please adjust the gain on your recording setup. The volume seems uneven.
eatenmyeyes 2 years ago
I totaly agree with you Biggs. It's all about control. The gov now has control of the banks. The car companies. Next will be us.
Auggie56 2 years ago
People in Europe who rely on the FDA to tell them if a drug is safe and rely on US developed drugs every day saying US health care is too expensive is like them saying we spend too much on our military... while a US air base defends German sovereignty at American taxpayer expense! Can you say hypocricy?
BiggsReport 2 years ago
I like the question of what we are, but I do not accept it affects healthcare, nor the points made about the UK system. While it is true that 'NICE' (the org that decides a certain amount of clinical practice standards) has rejected several medicines as subsidized on the health system, and has had problems over certain care including in psychiatric treatment, where they have pushed for less medicines, and in Alzheimers, where they initially rejected an impressive drug, until it was shown to
rulllar 2 years ago
'pay for itself' by keeping people able to work for 2-3 years longer, it is no different in the USA in any case. Insurance companies try to push certain things, medical companies try to push certain medicines. The 'panel of experts' mentioned is more in existence in the US, where vague insurance policies mean an 'expert' has to accept or reject a claim, or because, by definition, all doctors are the experts who judge whether you need a medicine, whether you can cope with stronger doses etc..
rulllar 2 years ago
No, sorry, in the USA, there are about 2000 insurance companies competing with one another. Competition is limited by too many government regulations and regional limits on competition across state lines, but if one insurance company decides not to cover you, you do have options, also you can just buy anything you want with your own money. Australia and the UK both restrict things you can buy with your own money if they are not available in the health basket because of "fairness" issues.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
I will give you an example. Someone close to me died abroad. (South America). We (since we're from the UK) had "BUPA" (UK private health insurance) insurance, which included foreign trips. They passed the hefty bill to their "US sister company". First thing they said to the doctor? "You should not have treated her, we will give you no more than 10 percent"... a bureaucrat profit-driven rejected that left us with the bill, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS MONTHS AFTER THE TREATMENT (very unprofessional!).
rulllar 2 years ago
On the other hand, if the government in the UK rejects your request for a drug or treatment (as has occurred in some well publicized cases over there), you have no recourse except to sue your own government (as has indeed happened). They also restrict what drugs are allowed to be sold in the country not just based on safety (as the USA), but also on cost; so if it is marginally more effective but more expensive, it will not be available... in many cases even if you want to buy it on your own.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
What do you mean? You can always get a prescription and buy it yourself! It's just the full rate, not subsidized. That was the problem with NICE, they rejected a few and many people could not afford them at full price. But you can always get them.
rulllar 2 years ago
Eventually, under pressure and threats from us, as well, they agreed on reduced settlement with the doctor. However the whole process was traumatic, horrible. We were fearing bankrupcy, months of stress and pain, all this just a couple of months after a massive personal tragedy.
I'm not "pro or against" the Obama plan, I am just highlighting it is far from simple and often painful and wrong. There are MANY MANY (legitimate) complaints about the NHS. However at least things like this dont happen
rulllar 2 years ago
My friend, the problem isn't number of insurance companies, it's the vague cover, it's the lack of cover if you have preexisting problems... the difficulty of a former cancer patient, the difficulty of a diabetic. I don't know the details, but I know there are many problems.
Furthermore, it's a bit late to change company only AFTER finding out they reject treatment you were initially under the complete impression they would never reject when you signed up...
rulllar 2 years ago
But don't you see; EVERY single government controlled health care monopoly on the planet makes a decision in the case of terminally ill or elderly patients based on a bureaucratic formula whether they will be allowed to live or die. On the other hand; in a purely free market, the most vital necessity of life (food) takes on such a multiplicity of form as to fit any type of person and any kind of budget. The free market will create a plan for cancer patients, diabetics, etc if you just let it.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
Do a search for Barbara Wagner in Oregon. That video says it all.
The government denies care to protect it's budget; the private company gives her drugs for free because it is good free advertising for their product. Government health care 0, selfish capitalists 1.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
I will check the video. But please my friend give me your thoughts on the following:
Private insurance healthcare in the US has led to health costing the US about 200 percent what it costs in the UK for the NHS, and thats with over 10 percent of the US not being covered (eg 90 percent of population costs 200 percent of the money per capita GDP). What happens with the issue of health care spending? Is it out of control? What can you do? After all, Americans life expectancy is less than brits..
rulllar 2 years ago
And what are the limitations on the market? What do you do with the problems? Of people finding out they were not insured for a transplant, or not insured for certain conditions under certain circumstances... it's a bit late for them to change policy is it not? Is that not more or less the same as deciding their death (or if they are luckier a life of suffering without the ability to pay for treatment)? As I said I'm not pro/against market health, just raising questions about its track record..
rulllar 2 years ago
Before you start talking about health care costs in the USA being too high compared to the rest of the world; you have to understand that 90% of ALL new drugs in the World for the past generation have come out of the USA, paid for by US consumers. WE cover the cost of YOUR R&D. It gets better. The UK relies on the US FDA to determine what is a safe and unsafe drug, so does Australia and over a dozen other countries. We pay for that too. As for uncovered areas... 80% of the uninsured in the USA..
BiggsReport 2 years ago
...are young men between the ages of 18 and 35. They are generally young and healthy and do not have insurance because they don't feel they need it. They have the option not to buy something they do not use; which is more freedom than you have in Europe. Americans can and do buy healthcare on a per-item basis and can do so up to ANY item you can imagine. People come from all over the world to get a single item (like a heart transplant) here, because the best technology and doctors in the world..
BiggsReport 2 years ago
... are here. If you look at the quantities of people turned down flat in the USA, and who cannot get anything from any insurance company; you will find a HIGHER percentage of citizens in the UK turned down for some treatment (or more likely simply told to wait years until they are likely to die and remove themselves as a cost to the taxpayer) than those turned down here. FURTHER private companies in the USA< like the drug maker in the video about the Oregon woman will provide treatment free..
BiggsReport 2 years ago
For reasons of good public relations, which is something the vaunted NHS has only begun to care about very recently indeed, but which ANY private company must take into account. It is simply impossible as a private firm, no matter how big, to be as heartless as a government, as Nike found out with the sweatshops issue. If it gets out that somebody was denied coverage and died, and it gets into the news, the company will lose customers. Government never does.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
One more thing I forgot before;
We have lower life expectancy than Brits do right? Have you ever considered the fact that Americans spend on average about twice as much time driving cars as Brits do? We spend about a quarter of our entire lives driving. In California, it is normal to drive 6 hours a day to and from work. This is a BIG, spread-out country. Guess what the most dangerous form of modern transportation is? Driving. Nothing to do with your health care system, it is called lifestyle.
BiggsReport 2 years ago