And the winner of tonight's Republican debate...

ransom wrote: So we have one bell curve defining something along the lines of "amount of government which does the most net good for the most people". But we may not necessarly, as a society, want to try to keep ourselves pegged at the highest point of that curve, depending on the sum of our preferences about how to live.

Right. And I don't think we should peg ourselves to the highest point, even if it were a knowable one. I think it's good that there's a range and that different countries fall into different locations. It gives people options.

I actually think it's a reasonably broad curve. I'd say that America, Canada, most of Europe, Japan, and many other countries are within one standard deviation of the "ideal point". Some are farther away than others to different sides of the curve, but I think lots of places have a reasonably good handle on things and that this is actually a pretty good time to be living in those places.

I also think that there are places that fall within about two standard deviations, like China, and I don't think I'd like to live there.

In reply to Salanis:

Just one thing to add to this.. when I say "as much freedom as possible" what I mean is more roughly like "as much freedom as possible while allowing a governing body to protect similar freedoms and rights of others".

I want the ability to build a deck on top of my roof without conforming to code, because it's my decision, and I also want the ability to buy a house with a deck built on top of its roof, but I fully respect the idea of some basic code which enables protects people from buying a house with a deck on its roof if they don't understand why that's a bad idea.

I want the right and freedom to drive a rustbucket piece of crap on the roads, but someone else has the right and freedom to sue the living crap out of me, and for me to be arrested for whatever if my brakes fail and/or my wheels fall off for not maintaining my car.

I want the ability to not wear a seat belt in the car.

That kind of thing. It's hard to define, but basically I want individuals to have the freedom until it infringes upon anothers'. Of course, then, we have to draw lines in shades of grey. If you declare that individuals have the right to clean air, than no power plants can produce power anymore, so there has to be give and take. I simply think that I don't have enough freedoms as it is now.

I may ramble again. I'll try to organize this, but no promises.

Okay, first, complete lack of government intervention is not always fair and equal. I think that's overlooked a lot. This country promises freedom for everyone, even people who do not have a lot of money or influence. We pride ourselves on providing opportunity. So we have regulations to prevent price fixing, monopolies and such so everyone has a fair shot. Government has to do those things - industry can and will not.

So think about it. For various reasons, some people are just in a better position than others. We talked before about how fortunate we are to have had the backgrounds we each have. And our ability to manage situations is a result of our hard work, but also of circumstances that were handed to us. Those things happened because we and those before us built a society that works in a certain way. Works better for some than for others.

So to whatever degree, we all bear some responsibility to those that our society isn't working for. So to provide opportunity and freedom for everyone, there need to be some checks in place. Again, government has to be the one to provide those checks.

I understand positions like Rand Paul's. He feels that if people don't want to serve blacks, they should be free to do so. It's a free country and that's how it is. I don't agree. I think we should have freedom for everyone. If I happen to be born black, it should doom me to a terrible life. I should have the same shot as everyone. It wasn't that long ago in parts of this country that a black person couldn't start a business because no one would work with them. Lenders, suppliers, customers. That's not fair. And it was (and is) a real problem. Only government can act in those situations. And it should.

Finally, some things are basic. I talked about water before, and make no mistake, there are some very real issues concerning water and who has a right to it. It isn't to the point that anyone is dying, but it's very real.

But what about health care? I happen to think some level of reasonable health care is a right. And as pointed out, if you have no money and walk into the ER you will get care. But it's a very poor way to give it. It makes sense for us to do it in a more efficient way. We either socialize it or require people to pay some of their own share. We've elected to do the later. You have to pay your share for some insurance, so if you jump off a cliff and end up in the hospital for a year I don't have to pay for it. Is that the best way? I don't think so. I'd rather it be socialized. But socialized care was killed by rhetoric before it ever had a chance. So we got this. It is what it is. Personally, I think it's better than nothing and much better than where we were. And I believe the opposition to it has much less to do with ideology than it does with politics. Nixon proposed a much better plan, but Kennedy killed it because he thought we could do better once we got a Democrat in office. He later said it was the worst mistake he ever made. It was only after Clinton tried to get it done that the division between "should we" and "shouldn't we" came along. Before that, everyone agreed we should.

Here's the thing. It's a step. Down the road, people will say “Wait, we're doing it anyway. Wouldn't it be better if...” and we'll take another step. I often equate it to “don't ask don't tell”. Clinton took a lot of heat for that. But look where it got us. It didn't make sense. It was rewarding people for lying. And it resulted in gays being in the service all the same. Down the road people said “We're doing it anyway. Shouldn't we just get rid of it and let them serve?” And we did.

Same thing will happen down the road. You do what politics will allow with an eye toward what it sets up down the road. That's what this is and I think it will probably work. Once people have real benefit from it there will be no going back. No one will give it up. Just like the system in England. The most conservative person in England would never dare suggest that people don't have a right to health care. We'll get there too.

I do not disagree with you, for the most part.

It's a delicate balancing act. I don't think anyone, even the combined wisdom of the GRM forums, really knows what the "right" answer is. I don't think our society fully has the "right" answer. Heck, I don't even think there is a "right" answer. I do think the current answer isn't too painfully off the mark though.

I also think that, as societies get larger, denser, and more complex there invariably must be more rules and more limitations to balance all the competing needs. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but is inevitable.

Go back to my governing track days example. A small marquee club can get away with a lot fewer and more informal rules about how the track will be used. Individual judgement is better. Every now and then you get a true ass-hat that the governing body needs to step in and reprimand, but not that much. At a small event, I can decide which group I want to run in and when based upon my own judgement of my skill level compared to others around me. Compare that to a NASA or SCCA event where you have hundreds of people trying to share the space. You need a whole lot more rules and governance to manage people. Individual discretion is no longer appropriate. I am no longer qualified to just decide on my own when I feel like going out on the track. Even if I am wise enough to make the right decision on my own, I have to set that freedom aside because there are enough people who aren't.

Should those people who aren't wise enough to decide on their own when and how to use the track, be forbidden from using it? No. Do we need those rules and restrictions to protect them and others? I say yes.

So maybe you are wise enough to judge and control a beater rust bucket. There are enough people out there who aren't that we need to put limitations on that to prevent someone from killing a bunch of people when their brakes fail.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Bravo sir. Well put.

These are not simple problems with simple answers that our society faces. It will take a lot of time, work, wisdom, and compromise to refine this system.

There will be lots of disagreements along the way, and I think that is a good thing. I do not think any one person has the right answer. I think it will take all of our bullheaded wrong answers balanced against each other to get a system that is pretty close to being best.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: But what about health care? I happen to think some level of reasonable health care is a right.

Eddie, this point I disagree with, but this is really the crux. We have a decision to make as a country, and it is exactly this. Not black and white: Is health care a right, but "to what point is health care a right"? Obviously an ambulance EMT is going to unwrap you from the pole and bring you to the hospital where they will do their best to stabilize you before deciding if you can afford the bill, and I even agree with this.

All the same, should I be liable to pay a portion of the Dr.s visit that will undoubtedly be abused (let's just use a fictitious socialized health care possibility): a guy gets a Dr.s appt for a false complaint like a migraine so that he can get free prescription to advil rather than buy it. Because of this, I think we ought to sit down as a country and vote on what we feel is a fair level of socialization. Even that potentially free ambulance ride (there is a bill, my insurance paid one for me once) is socialization to some degree. Once we do that, slap that bad boy in the bill of rights ensuring that a supermajority of Americans want this thing to be a constitutional amendment and then we can go about figuring out the particulars. Until then we're doomed to political grandstanding and "bills that we have to pass so we can see what's in them".

Again, Eddie, even as polar opposites, I think you representing a liberal population in congress and me representing a conversation population in congress could hammer out something pretty awesome.

Just for giggles, I read an article yesterday and totally agreed with something Dennis Kunich said, so it's not all bad out there I guess.

If people actually read what Dennis Kucinich said, they would find a LOT that you can't find fault in. He is a smart, smart guy.

Shoot, let's let him and Ron Paul hammer out some stuff. I'm down with that. I don't agree with Ron Paul, but I do think he's on the level.

If I may... That's one of my better posts. I've always wanted to write a book. That may be the outline. Maybe call it "Why 'Liberal' isn't a dirty word" with a sub title "And why Government isn't as bad as you think".

I think I'd be OK with that. Eliminate the primaries and let it be Paul vs. Kucinich in the general. It would be entertaining - that's for sure.

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

Do we have to get just one? I mean, stooping to my own preferences, I'd take Kucinich, but that's not surprising or interesting.

But after this conversation, I'm intrigued by the prospect of making them work together... Coin toss for Prez and Veep? Just handcuff them together and call the resulting entity the president?

On further thought, though, I do wonder what we'd get if those were the options in the general...

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Here's the thing. It's a step. Down the road, people will say “Wait, we're doing it anyway. Wouldn't it be better if...” and we'll take another step. I often equate it to “don't ask don't tell”. Clinton took a lot of heat for that. But look where it got us. It didn't make sense. It was rewarding people for lying. And it resulted in gays being in the service all the same. Down the road people said “We're doing it anyway. Shouldn't we just get rid of it and let them serve?” And we did.

Statements like this are why there is an extreme right that doesn't want to give you an inch. They know you are after the whole mile, just an inch at a time. They know it'll never stop because of the, "We're doing it anyway" mentality the left has. This is why so many conservatives won't vote for someone that compromises. Many of them are drawing a line in the sand.

Back at the beginning of this country, it worked that the guy who came in second in the elections was VP. It did not work out.

President is not there to be a balanced head making the laws. President is there to be able to take relatively quick, authoritative action in defense of the constitution.

Toyman01 wrote: Statements like this are why there is an extreme left that doesn't want to give you an inch. They know you are after the whole mile, just an inch at a time. They know it'll never stop because of the, "We're doing it anyway" mentality the right has. This is why so many liberals won't vote for someone that compromises. Many of them are drawing a line in the sand.

Edited that for you.

Suffice to say that our society has evolved, is evolving, and will continue to evolve. It takes all points of view tugging in all directions to dictate what the course of that evolution will be.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I understand positions like Rand Paul's. He feels that if people don't want to serve blacks, they should be free to do so. It's a free country and that's how it is. I don't agree. I think we should have freedom for everyone.

Making you read this ridiculous statement one more time.

Toyman01 wrote: Statements like this are why there is an extreme right that doesn't want to give you an inch. They know you are after the whole mile, just an inch at a time. They know it'll never stop because of the, "We're doing it anyway" mentality the left has. This is why so many conservatives won't vote for someone that compromises. Many of them are drawing a line in the sand.

Yes, and I even thought that when I typed it. But think about what you're saying. They want what they want no matter what. Well, yeah, that's what they want. But that's why there are people like Nancy Pilosi who say "sorry, but we're moving forward anyway."

And that, I guess, is why it's as much of a mess as it is.

Osterkraut wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I understand positions like Rand Paul's. He feels that if people don't want to serve blacks, they should be free to do so. It's a free country and that's how it is. I don't agree. I think we should have freedom for everyone.

Making you read this ridiculous statement one more time.

Not sure what you're saying.

During the past 3 years I've had the opportunity to spend time in several socialized countries, all I can say is that several of you have no idea what you are asking for. If you truly think that is the way to go, head over to one and take a good long look at your future. It isn't nearly as pretty as many on the left seem to think.

Having said that, I do believe there are things we can learn from those systems and maybe incorporate them into our society, but total socialization of health care is one of the quickest way to downgrade your system, and place a burdon on your country that it may not recover from in financial terms. As a system though, they leave a lot to be desired. We had an injured employee in the UK, and his care was dismal. The doctors here had to "redo" everything they did and it almost cost him a limb. Pitiful...

Also, the statement about everyone agreed that we all wanted socialized health care until Clinton brought it up is utter crap. I was a small business owner at the time, and trust me when I say it was a disasterous monstrosity the same as Obamacare. I would have been out of business trying to comply. That debate over socialized health care has been going on since the early 1900's and it has never been agreed that all want it. In fact, the only people to speak of that have wanted it are liberals. Johnson also pushed hard for it and could not achieve it.

Like I said in another thread, do you really want the government telling you everything you can an cannot do? If they get control over your health care, they can mandate anything they want in order to control you. If they deem racing is to much of a financial risk to the system, they can outlaw it with a stroke of the pen, never having a vote in congress. This is a slippery, slippery slope. Most people never think of the consequences beyond their current situations.

Just to be clear - I realy do understand Rand Paul's position. But, yes, he really does think that people who own a business have the right to refuse service to anyone they want to. He says it's a bad business decision, but they have the right.

"I don't like the idea of telling private business owners – I abhor racism – I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership."

A bad business decision- but a decision. They have the right, even if Paul thinks it's wrong.

I'm not putting words in his mouth or taking it out of context. He is saying he wouldn't do it and I'm not calling him a racist. I don't think he is. I understand the idological position. I just don't agree with it. I don't agree you can withold service for just any reason. As I said before, it should be fair. If I want to start a business, I'll need to get supplies from other bussnisses. It's not fair for another business to withold services, or charge me more or whatever because of my race. That's not insuring opportunity to everyone.

At the same time, I do understand Paul's position. On the surface of it, it makes sense. As he says, it's like the freedom of speech question. If you want freedom of speech, that means freedom for people to say things that are horible. And he's right about that. And he's right to say that in America, you're free to be a racist.

racerdave600 wrote: Also, the statement about everyone agreed that we all wanted socialized health care until Clinton brought it up is utter crap.

It would be if I had said that. I didn't. What everyone agreed on was that it was a problem and something should be done. That's all I said. After Clinton, one side left the issue alone. Before Clinton there were Republican plans presented, many of which were as progressive or more than Obamacare.

EDIT-only-post: I had a post I was contemplating and editing and fat-thumbed a premature submission. I deleted it. If you happened to get it, don't bother reading it 'til I write it properly (if I can).

Read though Nixon's plan if you have a minute. It's very much like Obamacare. This was a Republican plan opposed by Democrats who thought they could get a single payer plan passes if we held out for a Democratic President.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

racerdave600 wrote: If they deem racing is to much of a financial risk to the system, they can outlaw it with a stroke of the pen, never having a vote in congress.

Private insurers certainly don't need an act of congress to exclude racing.

I think we're more likely to run into the total refusal of private companies to cover racing (save possibly with prohibitive rates) than to have the government ban a popular pastime which supports a not-insignificant industry.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Read though Nixon's plan if you have a minute. It's very much like Obamacare. This was a Republican plan opposed by Democrats who thought they could get a single payer plan passes if we held out for a Democratic President. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

That was an interesting read. And a compromise for which I could vote "yea". And to think it came from Nixon's pen..mind boggling. I wonder how it would have worked in practice. I guess we'll see, as you said-it's pretty much the law we just passed (provided it survives the lawsuits).

tuna55 wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: But what about health care? I happen to think some level of reasonable health care is a right.

Eddie, this point I disagree with, but this is really the crux. We have a decision to make as a country, and it is exactly this. Not black and white: Is health care a right, but "to what point is health care a right"?

I don't think you disagreed with me. We just kind of said it differently. I said "some level of reasonable health care" and you said "to what degree is health care a right?" What we both said is it's not reasonable to leave a dying American citizen lying in the street to die, and it's not responsable to provide cutting edge medical technology to everyone in every case. The aswer is somewhere in the middle. Point being, I can't remember hearing a lot of politicians say that. Seems it's always laid out as a one end or the other deal. But what we got is somewhere in the middle, even if one side is trying real hard to make it sound like something else.

friedgreencorrado wrote: *That* was an interesting read. And a compromise for which I could vote "yea". And to think it came from Nixon's pen..mind boggling. I wonder how it would have worked in practice. I guess we'll see, as you said-it's pretty much the law we just passed (provided it survives the lawsuits).

Democrats dropped the ball on the political messages surrounding this whole thing. You're right- it is a HUGE compromise. But you wouldn't know it by the "liberal media" coverage.