Facebook debate... a glimmer of hope?
My brother posted this idiotic analogy:
"So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said 'Yes', indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.
"Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides 'OK, we’ll ask again' and again, the majority of people say 'Yes, lets keep the soda machine.'
"Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says 'OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED', so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.
"What should we do???
"Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the job.
"Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to 'Negotiate', to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine."
My response:
"Hmm. Think I'd fire Bill. On the otherhand, if the soda machine cost me 5% of my income, I think I'd praise him."
3rd party:
"'if the soda machine cost me 5% of my income, I think I'd praise him.'
"This is the major point.
"If the soda machine costs me money, it doesn't matter if the majority of people are in favor of it.
"The majority has no legitimate claim to my money and doesn't have my permission to spend it for me.
"Also, if 'Bill' is supposed to be the government here, keep in mind that not everyone is employed by Bill. If Bill doesn't control my income, I'm not really concerned if Bill's employees don't get paid. They can get different jobs.
"Heck, they can even move to a new job with a soda machine already installed! (Like Europe) LOL"
My brother (snippets):
"[3rd party] is angry because it's a mandate and it offends his sense of freedom and choice. But social security is mandate, medicare is mandate and your federal income taxes are a mandate. The Supreme Court upheld the ACA because the penalty for not carrying health insurance is a tax."
...
"IMHO it is more immoral to force people to have a lower quality of life and length of life just because they are poor than it is immoral to tax everyone so that we can provide a minimum standard of healthcare. "
3rd Party:
"'[3rd Party] is angry because it's a mandate and it offends his sense of freedom and choice. But social security is mandate, medicare is mandate and your federal income taxes are a mandate.'
"• I'm against the social security mandate.
"• I'm against the medicare mandate.
"• I'm against income taxation.
"Just because mandates currently exist does not mean we should blindly accept future mandates as though the precedent is acceptable.
"Your argument that more mandates are okay because we already accept them is like a slave saying 'I don't mind if master beats me with a chain because he already beats me with a whip.'
"It's circular reasoning.
"'The Bible is right because the Bible says so.'
"'The government has the right to take things because they've already given themselves the right to take things.'
"^ Those arguments use the same flawed logic.
"No amount of numbers and statistics makes mandated theft legitimate. No amount of support of theft from other countries or 'the majority' makes mandated theft legitimate. I know you disagree [my brother], but I think it's a bad idea to assert that mandates are universally acceptable because we already accept them.
----
"'IMHO it is more immoral to force people to have a lower quality of life and length of life just because they are poor than it is immoral to tax everyone so that we can provide a minimum standard of healthcare.'
"No one is 'forcing' people to have a lower quality of life. That is asinine.
"Leaving someone alone is not "force". Non-action is not "force". Allowing people to fend for themselves is not aggression. Stealing from people is aggression.
"I could easily argue that having a laptop, a cell phone and a car drastically improves peoples' quality of life, therefore it's immoral not to force everyone to pay for subsidize these products so that everyone can have a 'minimum standard of life'.
"How long until democratic socialists are screaming 'Laptops, cell phones and cars for EVERYONE!'
"I've already heard so-called progressives hint in that direction.
"And since we've already set the precedent that the government is obligated to mandate we pay for things, I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before people are posting data to support such a notion.
"It seems like a slippery slope to me."
Unfortunately, debates similar to this have caused my brother to "give up" on me. Not sure what that means, but he's indicated his intention to split up his friends between multiple Facebook accounts. I get to be part of his "non-Obama-can-do-no-wrong" friends list. I let him know that I only have one identity, and would not be splitting up my friends to discourage debate.
Hey, [3rd party], are you here in the Gulch? You belong here.
"So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said 'Yes', indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.
"Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides 'OK, we’ll ask again' and again, the majority of people say 'Yes, lets keep the soda machine.'
"Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says 'OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED', so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.
"What should we do???
"Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the job.
"Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to 'Negotiate', to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine."
My response:
"Hmm. Think I'd fire Bill. On the otherhand, if the soda machine cost me 5% of my income, I think I'd praise him."
3rd party:
"'if the soda machine cost me 5% of my income, I think I'd praise him.'
"This is the major point.
"If the soda machine costs me money, it doesn't matter if the majority of people are in favor of it.
"The majority has no legitimate claim to my money and doesn't have my permission to spend it for me.
"Also, if 'Bill' is supposed to be the government here, keep in mind that not everyone is employed by Bill. If Bill doesn't control my income, I'm not really concerned if Bill's employees don't get paid. They can get different jobs.
"Heck, they can even move to a new job with a soda machine already installed! (Like Europe) LOL"
My brother (snippets):
"[3rd party] is angry because it's a mandate and it offends his sense of freedom and choice. But social security is mandate, medicare is mandate and your federal income taxes are a mandate. The Supreme Court upheld the ACA because the penalty for not carrying health insurance is a tax."
...
"IMHO it is more immoral to force people to have a lower quality of life and length of life just because they are poor than it is immoral to tax everyone so that we can provide a minimum standard of healthcare. "
3rd Party:
"'[3rd Party] is angry because it's a mandate and it offends his sense of freedom and choice. But social security is mandate, medicare is mandate and your federal income taxes are a mandate.'
"• I'm against the social security mandate.
"• I'm against the medicare mandate.
"• I'm against income taxation.
"Just because mandates currently exist does not mean we should blindly accept future mandates as though the precedent is acceptable.
"Your argument that more mandates are okay because we already accept them is like a slave saying 'I don't mind if master beats me with a chain because he already beats me with a whip.'
"It's circular reasoning.
"'The Bible is right because the Bible says so.'
"'The government has the right to take things because they've already given themselves the right to take things.'
"^ Those arguments use the same flawed logic.
"No amount of numbers and statistics makes mandated theft legitimate. No amount of support of theft from other countries or 'the majority' makes mandated theft legitimate. I know you disagree [my brother], but I think it's a bad idea to assert that mandates are universally acceptable because we already accept them.
----
"'IMHO it is more immoral to force people to have a lower quality of life and length of life just because they are poor than it is immoral to tax everyone so that we can provide a minimum standard of healthcare.'
"No one is 'forcing' people to have a lower quality of life. That is asinine.
"Leaving someone alone is not "force". Non-action is not "force". Allowing people to fend for themselves is not aggression. Stealing from people is aggression.
"I could easily argue that having a laptop, a cell phone and a car drastically improves peoples' quality of life, therefore it's immoral not to force everyone to pay for subsidize these products so that everyone can have a 'minimum standard of life'.
"How long until democratic socialists are screaming 'Laptops, cell phones and cars for EVERYONE!'
"I've already heard so-called progressives hint in that direction.
"And since we've already set the precedent that the government is obligated to mandate we pay for things, I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before people are posting data to support such a notion.
"It seems like a slippery slope to me."
Unfortunately, debates similar to this have caused my brother to "give up" on me. Not sure what that means, but he's indicated his intention to split up his friends between multiple Facebook accounts. I get to be part of his "non-Obama-can-do-no-wrong" friends list. I let him know that I only have one identity, and would not be splitting up my friends to discourage debate.
Hey, [3rd party], are you here in the Gulch? You belong here.
I'm considering weeding out FB friends who don't think. I had posted this article that said only 5 people had signed up for Obamacare in Iowa (I'm from iowa) and I asked those friends to weigh in on it. One of my responses was "why don't you want poor people to have healthcare?" sigh
He did not succeed in shaming me. The contrapositive argument to his house of cards is no more true: "I am not popular, therefore, I am wrong".
We're not very close, it's no real loss if he unfriends me. I already friended the 3rd party. I want to encourage him to check out the Gulch. He'd be a great asset. I'm going to post one of his satirical comments... I think you'll love it.
------------
People who have more stuff than me don't deserve sympathy if the government steals their things. Only people who have less than me deserve my sympathy.
And even though I'm much too selfish and/or busy to regularly donate things/time/energy directly to the poor, and too cowardly to steal from people on the poor's behalf, I'll use my clout as a voter to encourage the government to steal and redistribute on my behalf!
DAMN! I'm so altruistic and charitable! I'm also progressive and sooo much more intelligent than those dirty slave-owning founders who were all like, "Screw you, I've got mine".
If only people of my caliber were around in the 1700's! We could have created the socialist utopia the founders were too selfish and stupid to have created.
If only I were there to tell those selfish retards Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin that everyone can have everything they want if everyone just steals from each other with the government as the enforcer! Then we could have realized REAL PROGRESS!!!!!
---------
Make it a Gulch post?