• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The biggest straw man

PhantomWolf said:
While I am sure you can make an argument that 4 is taking away the Employers right to fire people for any reason they like, how are the freedoms to change your work without fear of losing healthcare, or have a real choice of any Doctor you want, taking away the power of others, other then removing their artificial power over other people lives that they should not have in the first place because it limits people's freedom of choice and self control?
Click to expand...

It involves the use of other's resources against their will to find those services.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The difference you are omitting is two parties reaching a mutual contract, and adhering to that contract, is freedom. Government arrangements do not necessarily have that. Firing someone without cause is your mutual agreement and both parties freedom is honored.
Click to expand...

Only if you assume equal bargaining power. Are those terms that could be freely negotiated, or are they terms an employee has to accept or there will be no job?

You think anyone, if given the choice, would agree to a contract that stripped them of rights? Amusingly, the reason an employer can fire someone without cause is because of the rules developed by government in that particular state.

When your theory requires such an obvious fiction, it may be a good idea to just let it float away.
 
TraneWreck said:
Only if you assume equal bargaining power. Are those terms that could be freely negotiated, or are they terms an employee has to accept or there will be no job?

You think anyone, if given the choice, would agree to a contract that stripped them of rights? Amusingly, the reason an employer can fire someone without cause is because of the rules developed by government in that particular state.

When your theory requires such an obvious fiction, it may be a good idea to just let it float away.
Click to expand...

Mine does not assume equal bargaining power. It is equally free under unequal bargaining power.

And I absolutely have a problem with government regulation that permits the firing without cause. I oppose regulation even if it has the specific goal of promoting open systems. For example I absolutely oppose limited liability and incorporation.

ETA: also, this is all independent of if freedom is a "good" or "bad" thing in the first place.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Mine does not assume equal bargaining power. It is equally free under unequal bargaining power.
Click to expand...

That is just false as a matter of fact. I know you hate empiricism, but concepts of "freedom" make no sense unless you examine reality. This is how you end up with people thinking segregation should have been solved through competitive federalism.

I know you won't do this, so it's probably the point at which any value in our exchange ends.

And I absolutely have a problem with government regulation that permits the firing without cause. I oppose regulation even if it has the specific goal of promoting open systems. For example I absolutely oppose limited liability and incorporation.
Click to expand...

Right, you promote a theoretical frame that fails the moment anyone considers anything practical.
 
TraneWreck said:
That is just false as a matter of fact. I know you hate empiricism, but concepts of "freedom" make no sense unless you examine reality. This is how you end up with people thinking segregation should have been solved through competitive federalism.

I know you won't do this, so it's probably the point at which any value in our exchange ends.



Right, you promote a theoretical frame that fails the moment anyone considers anything practical.
Click to expand...

How is it false as a matter of fact? It seems freedom is entirely a conceptual matter.

It doesn't fail when considering anything practical. That would only be true if I say it is for promoting some practical ends. I do not.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
How is it false as a matter of fact? It seems freedom is entirely a conceptual matter.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Freedom is a very practical matter.

It's wrong as a matter of fact because unequal bargaining power does, in fact, limit freedom.

This is why concepts like Separate but Equal were struck down. Conceptually, maybe; in reality, of course not. Trying to evaluate segregation based on the internal logic of the laws would have been a totally pointless effort. Same is true with contractual bargaining power. This is why courts hear testimony instead of just reading statutes.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
Look at my signature

Less of my taxes go on healthcare than your taxes. I also don't need private health insurance - except for holidays abroad outside the EU*.
Click to expand...


FTFY


(*for the time being)



Note - I would still highly recommend travel insurance for EU citizens holidaying in the EU - an EHIC won't cover an AA.
 
TraneWreck said:
No, it isn't. Freedom is a very practical matter.

It's wrong as a matter of fact because unequal bargaining power does, in fact, limit freedom.

This is why concepts like Separate but Equal were struck down. Conceptually, maybe; in reality, of course not.
Click to expand...

Separate but equal is a system that expressly limits freedom to reach a mutual agreement.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Pardon me if misunderstood the base claim but the claims seem based on universal health care. If so, that requires taxation.
Click to expand...

While it is a consequence of UHC, it could be established without it, for instance requiring Insurance Companies to allow their clients to choose their health care professionals instead of forcing them to pick from a limited number.

For example, not health care, but when I had a car hit mine I was able to determine which panel beater I used to get my car repaired. Certain ones had a relationship with the Insurance Company meaning that there were advantages to go with them, but if I had chosen another one that didn't, they still would have covered it, even if the one I picked was more expensive than those they had as partners. This is what freedom is, the ability to choice for one's self rather than having others make those decisions for you. By the Insurance Company restricting your choices, you have less freedom.
 
PhantomWolf said:
While it is a consequence of UHC, it could be established without it, for instance requiring Insurance Companies to allow their clients to choose their health care professionals instead of forcing them to pick from a limited number.
Click to expand...

That would be a restriction on the ability for the parties to reach a mutual agreement.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Separate but equal is a system that expressly limits freedom to reach a mutual agreement.
Click to expand...

It was used as an analogy.

Theoretic contractual bargaining power :: actual bargaining power

Separate but equal :: actual equality

You can say, in theory, that people are "free to contract" but that means very little when it comes to actual negotiations. Just like saying people are equal in a law means nothing when determining if there was actual equality in the South during Jim Crowe.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Pardon me if misunderstood the base claim but the claims seem based on universal health care. If so, that requires taxation.
Click to expand...

Just another point, you also seem to be missing the previous point made some time back that in more socialistic society's people don't see Taxation as a terrible taking of resources against their will, but rather as a way of investing in their county's future and the society that they live in. It's people on the right that have the belief that taxation is "taking their money." People on the left consider taxes as "paying their fair share towards creating a better society."
 
TraneWreck said:
It was used as an analogy.

Theoretic contractual bargaining power :: actual bargaining power

Separate but equal :: actual equality

You can say, in theory, that people are "free to contract" but that means very little when it comes to actual negotiations. Just like saying people are equal in a law means nothing when determining if there was actual equality in the South during Jim Crowe.
Click to expand...

And if there is something about uneven bargaining power that meant not free to contract then that would be true. But there isnt.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That would be a restriction on the ability for the parties to reach a mutual agreement.
Click to expand...

How do you come to a mutual agreement when one party holds all the power and demands that you take it or leave and no negotiation will be had?
 
BobTheCoward said:
And if there is something about uneven bargaining power that meant not free to contract then that would be true. But there isnt.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Uneven bargaining power does hamper freedom to contract. This isn't always a problem, but with regard to employment and healthcare, it really is.

It's just a matter of fact. Go to Walmart and try to negotiate lower prices on the goods therein. You will be rebuffed. They don't care, they have power, it directly limits your freedom to negotiate - it's take it or leave it.

Again, not really a problem in that scenario, but it is absolutely a limit on your freedom and power.
 
TraneWreck said:
Huh?

Uneven bargaining power does hamper freedom to contract. This isn't always a problem, but with regard to employment and healthcare, it really is.

It's just a matter of fact. Go to Walmart and try to negotiate lower prices on the goods therein. You will be rebuffed. They don't care, they have power, it directly limits your freedom to negotiate - it's take it or leave it.

Again, not really a problem in that scenario, but it is absolutely a limit on your freedom and power.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely not a restriction on your freedom. It makes no sense how you can think it is.
 
TraneWreck said:
Within a society, there simply is no freedom that can be given that does not necessarily limit a countervailing power.

It's not groundbreaking to point this out. The entire process is a balancing of who should have what freedom and which powers.

One of the fundamental absurdities of libertarianism is its insistence that government is the only freedom-limiting entity within society.
Click to expand...

The last paragraph is worth repeating
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is absolutely not a restriction on your freedom. It makes no sense how you can think it is.
Click to expand...

Haha, it is, it just isn't a serious one. It's a restriction on my freedom that I can't walk in and take everything. Society has rightly deemed my right to the freedom to just take **** as not particularly valuable and, in fact, quite damaging.

When most people walk into job negotiations, their freedom to negotiate and contract is highly limited. The farther down the socioeconomic scale one goes, the less freedom to negotiate a person has. This, again, is not always a problem, but there are certain protections that are necessary for a functioning society.

History and empirical reality has shown over and over that those protections will not manifest through individual contracts, in large part because the freedom you imagine is a fiction. Labor Unions and governments need to create those rules because they actually have some measure of power.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom