world

U.S. feminists warn candidates not to erode women's gains

28 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

28 Comments
Login to comment

The problem is that Govt is too heavily involved in these issues when it should not.

The myth by such feminist groups is that Govt forcing employers to pay for their female employee contraceptive is somehow a "hard won gain" it's not. It's a massive loss that will get worse with time because of the following,

They don't take into consideration the unintended consequences of using forced violence/coercion of Govt mandated contraceptive coverage. Economically what is means is that if an employer is forced to pay for contraceptive ( and its contraceptive, not a health care ) when the female employees wages will have to be garnished in order to meet this Govt regulation. If the females wages are garnished then the alternative is that they wot be hired at all or layed off. The reason for this is because then it becomes to expensive to have female employees with such added cost.

Then there is the principled constitutional argument against such a "win", Govt does not and should not have no authority to require an employer to buy his employees ANYTHING. It's a violation of private property rights and first amendment.

It also still gets worse because such a mandate would also fall under the category of Govt subsidy, and as is the case in health care, education and any good or service where Govt is heavily involved in the prices go up. Which then means that contraceptives will undergo price inflation just like college loans and health care, which means having a female employer becomes more expensive with time.

Indeed, if anything it is ironic how these leftist groups cry about how the right wants to "subjugate" women when in reality they are subjugating themselves supporting such foolish policies that will make them permanently unemployable. There is an old saying that is very true ' The road to hell is paved with good intentions", this policy has from a liberal view point a "good intention" but will actually hurt women severely. Women and their significant others should pay for their OWN contraceptives.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

“We are mad and we are fed up.” well, these feminists always are

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

You tell 'em, Aiser X! It's like requiring insurance to include prostate exams for men - do you know how much those things cost? Such a mandate could make men permanently unemployable!

Insurance should be voluntary, and the definition should be so vague as to encompass simply a bandaid and a kiss on the forehead. This will engender a race to the bottom that will put America back on top again! When will women and liberals ever learn this?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

But women's rights isn't an absolute. It all comes down to the culture. If the US decides the we should roll back rights for women I think we should respect that culture.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Where do you people come from? (AiserX, Superlib, etc...)

Look, you right wingers can't have it both ways. You don't want abortion, and you don't want insurance to pay for birth control. Now in the world that is not flat, we understand that birthcontrol is one of the most logical ways to help assure that there are far less unwanted pregnancies. And having insurance pay for this, like any other medication, makes sense.

But the flat earth crowd are of a bizzare mind set that birthcontrol is somehow evil and should not be paid for. Which is silly and frankly a bit medieval.

As for government being involved in the issue of procreation. AiserX misses the fact that it is the right in America that has thrust itself into the bedrooms and reproductive lives of people with all their pro-life and moral majority agendas in congress. If you are sincere in getting government out of the issue, then stop the bible thumpers from pressing their pro-life agenda in congress and in the legal front.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Penny-wise and pound foolish to try to derail free contraceptives.

If people have better access to contraceptives, the fewer accidental pregnancies, the fewer accidentals, the fewer total taken to full term. The fewer pregnancies means more productivity (not having to take maternity and paternity leave by the parents).

Yeah, go ahead, shoot yourselves in the foot. Allow more unwanted pregnancies and all that comes with that.

Even in poor areas of Africa and the indian subcontinent, they know enough to know that birth control is an important aspect of having people ascend from a life of grim prospects that unwanted pregnancies would saddle poor families with. It's one of the stepping stones in empowering women. How people in an industrialized country fail to realize this is either from stupidity or, well, probably just playing idiotic religion-based policies.

Is that the way we should think about healthcare, in terms of what is best for the population as a whole or what is best to get elected? It seems the latter and that is a sad commentary on the people and politicians.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Wrong tkoind2

First the libertarian view is that Govt should not be involved in any of these industries or regulations. Secondly not forcing companies from providing the myth of "free" benefits as contraception is no where NEAR the same as "denying" women contraception, read the last sentence of my previous post. They should but their OWN contraceptive voluntarily, is that too hard for a left-winger like your self to understand?

You do not realize that such mandates would place women in a position that no one would hire them. If i were an employer, doing business on such gun point levels, then you know what? I would not hire women AT ALL because they would be too expensive to hire. If anything YOU can't have it both ways where women can be hired, promoted, have wage increases and be given Govt mandated contraception. Does not work that way buddy.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

m5c32. Sadly the American flat earth crowd is too motivated by divine purpose to look at the practical and sensible reasons to support birth control. They are too eager to take America back to some imaginary 19th century time where everything was godly, perfect and pure. Reality, sadly does not enter into it for that crowd.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

If i were an employer, doing business on such gun point levels, then you know what? I would not hire women AT ALL because they would be too expensive to hire.

And that's not even to mention their hormonal tempests that turn them into raving lunatics four days a month! Listen, any woman can't afford contraception should simply abstain from sex! It's not rocket science.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Men can have their insurance cover Viagra, but women can't have contraception covered? (because somehow, only a woman has to be responsible for getting pregnant when a man is equally guilty of that?) Not to mention that unwanted pregnancies could be the result of rape (and considering the high rape rate, it's a good chance). Please. Women have a right to be pissed off, and if you're a man and you're doubting that, please be quiet and sit in the corner.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I'll agree that if a man can get Viagra, then a woman should be able to get the pill. I don't, however, tie this in with womens rights. It just seems like common sense to me. The roman catholic church has no say in it, and shouldn't, unless they are preaching from the pulpit at mass. Most Americans, including catholic Americans, think they are a joke. Lastly... What ever happened to just picking up condoms at the local convenience store before a "Big Night"? I mean, why is this even an issue?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Birth control pills should be treated like any other medication and covered by all insurance plans. Leave the bible thumping nonsense out of the question entirely.

I hope women in the US speak out strongly by voting all these flat earth neanderthals out of office.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

What I object to is women claiming a health benefit that could only benefit themselves. It's not like men are involved in the act of conception! And that lesbian couples will benefit twice per household - oh, it makes me want to throw up!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Women have the Republican Party to thank for the recent de-evolution of how women are treated in society, especially with the women the Tea Party Movement put forward to run for office, and with people like Rick Santorum, for all they are all people garnering support for their causes, but their causes include putting women back a few steps they've move forward (yes, even the powerful women are doing this).

Here's hoping that the same women who went to the polls to give Santorum a good smack this time around realize that whomever is chosen to run against Obama isn't that much better, if at all, in terms of regard for women, their rights, and everything else, and choose properly -- Democrat.

As to the birth control vs. Viagara debate, I can understand why the former might not be covered as opposed to the latter, but since religion is weighing into the debate, and since a whole lot more should be covered anyway, I agree both should be covered equally.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

We could have had the first woman vice president in 2009 but instead we got Joe Biden.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

It's not like men are involved in the act of conception! And that lesbian couples will benefit twice per household

Laguna, having an opinion is one thing, but what you said doesn't make sense. you believe women need contraception without men involved ? And you believe a lesbian couple needs contraception for what ?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Thumbs up for you, Cos! I'm just shadowing Republican thought.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The point that ultra-conservative, flip-flopping asshats like Rick "Which way is the political wind blowing today and can I seize it to get a win" Santorum would like most Americans to completely overlook is that there are multiple legitimate health benefits attributable to the Pill that many women in America, and indeed throughout the world, count on to lead healthy, successful lives. First and foremost is the Pill's ability to help the body regulate hormone production. No, not hormones for reproduction; Hormones for physical and emotional wellbeing.

There are also women out there who, without the benefits of a monthly hormonal regulation suffer crippling pain during their monthly menstrual cycle that leaves them unable to go to school, work, or raise their children in some cases, costing the American economy uncounted millions in lost productivity.

Hormones also help women who suffer from extreme acne find some measure of normalcy.

And these are just the things I can think of off the top of my head through personal experience with female friends.

That Republicans would have the audacity to even pretend that female contraceptives have no legitimate medical value in their Puritanical march back into the past would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. And pain-med addled toolbags like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk only reinforce the point that Americans need to take this challenge to women's rights, reproductive or otherwise, seriously.

American women and the men who love them should be united unequivocally against the misogynistic garbage that is now being peddled by some candidates of a fractured and desperate Republican Party that clearly lacks a cohesive economic roadmap for America's future.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

But women's rights isn't an absolute. It all comes down to the culture. If the US decides the we should roll back rights for women I think we should respect that culture.

What are you talking about, all human are born equal under Heaven, to deny them that right is inHuman, especially this day and age, I can't believe there are people who are insisting on aborting other peoples rights all for material things.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

But women's rights isn't an absolute.

Of course it is not a absolute. There are no such things as womens rights, just like how there are no such things as Christians rights or black rights. Group rights does not work, and only pits swathes of people against one another as one group of people want to legislate against another group of people in the name of their own collective rights. There are only individual rights. These include private property, Life, right to happiness, speech. Mandates such as these trample over the rights of the individual, namely the innovator entrepreneur whom one group of collectivist rightist believe they can supersede the individual by taking his private property and telling him what to do with it by force. Which then tramples on the right to happiness by coercion taking away the fruits of his labor.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Republicans the party of individual rights... freedoms...

On Tuesday, Virginia state senators approved a bill requiring abdominal ultrasounds for women seeking an abortion

They originally wanted to force these women to undergo a trans-vaginal probe ultrasound but finally figured out it was a bridge too far (try again later?). Can you say government intrusion? Can you say unnecessary medical procedure?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Freedom without equality is naught but privilege, AiserX. People need to have the means to use their freedoms, or else these are nothing but words in the wind. That's the problem of your entire radical mindset. For those without power, your credo is nothing but the freedom to starve instead of obeying the powerful.

The libertarian ethos would say that it is ethical and right for a rich land owner to buy the lands surrounding the home of someone who has wronged him, and the road, and then forbid him to intrude upon his lands, or any others who would try to reach him, and get the police to use force to enforce his commands on his property. That way, he can be killed by starvation in a way that Libertarians would consider both legal and moral. The fact that I can come up with ways to murder innocents in a way that comply legally and morally with the Libertarian philosophy is enough to convince me that it is morally bankrupt.

If you want though, consider a government like one big land owner who owns the land the country is on, with every citizen having one share of it. To be able to have access to the land, you have to agree to conditions, like a contract, the kind libertarians support. Amongst these conditions is an agreement to respect the laws and rules chosen by the government. If you don't agree to the rules, you can reject them, but then you have to agree to leave the land it owns, its private property. Any person who violates the rules after accepting the contract has broken the terms of the contract, and thus force can be used morally to apply those voluntarily chosen terms of the contract.

THERE, I've just morally justified government, any kind of government, according to the Libertarian ethos.

Anyway, governments have the authority to implement social rules and to pose conditions people have to respect if they want to do business in the society the government regulates. In fact, you cannot escape these rules, even without the government, societies and communities sanction people who refuse to play by the rules, that's how it has always worked, and that's the only way it can work. It's part of the social contract... you want access to the opportunities and security a society offers? Then you have to respect the rules this society poses as conditions for these.

Therefore, you cannot reject this out of principle, you have to debate on the merits of these rules. And on the merits, it fails utterly. Why shouldn't a modern society allow women easy access to birth control? This avoids unwanted pregnancies, abortions and allows women to be able to control their lives and develop their full potential. The only reason I can see is if you're a puritan who believes that sex is sinful and that birth control, by avoiding the possible consequences of sex, is immoral. But if that's the case, then I have no respect for that kind of opinion. If people want to think so, fine, think it, but don't enforce your morals on everyone else.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The libertarian ethos would say that it is ethical and right for a rich land owner to buy the lands surrounding the home of someone who has wronged him, and the road, and then forbid him to intrude upon his lands, or any others who would try to reach him, and get the police to use force to enforce his commands on his property. That way, he can be killed by starvation in a way that Libertarians would consider both legal and moral. The fact that I can come up with ways to murder innocents in a way that comply legally and morally with the Libertarian philosophy is enough to convince me that it is morally bankrupt.

Why would a rich land owner buy the land of someone around him just for being "wronged" and what exactly do mean by being "wronged". Furthermore what if the non-rich land owner does not want to sell his land? So using the police ( govt fundned ) to starve someone is libertarian? you sir have libertarianism confused for Stalinism. An apartment building is built on private land by a land-owner whom then rents out the apartments units to a willing contractor voluntarily. Under such agreements there are certain rules that the individuals agree to live by ( such as no graffiti, ect )

If you want though, consider a government like one big land owner who owns the land the country is on, with every citizen having one share of it. To be able to have access to the land, you have to agree to conditions, like a contract, the kind libertarians support. Amongst these conditions is an agreement to respect the laws and rules chosen by the government. If you don't agree to the rules, you can reject them, but then you have to agree to leave the land it owns, its private property. Any person who violates the rules after accepting the contract has broken the terms of the contract, and thus force can be used morally to apply those voluntarily chosen terms of the contract.

If the govt owns the land then it's public property not private. Of course if you don't agree to the laws the what happens? you get shot, you get arrested, you get fined, or all of the above. Of course Govt laws can be appealed as a law is not exactly the same as a supreme law of the land.

Therefore, you cannot reject this out of principle, you have to debate on the merits of these rules. And on the merits, it fails utterly. Why shouldn't a modern society allow women easy access to birth control? This avoids unwanted pregnancies, abortions and allows women to be able to control their lives and develop their full potential. The only reason I can see is if you're a puritan who believes that sex is sinful and that birth control, by avoiding the possible consequences of sex, is immoral. But if that's the case, then I have no respect for that kind of opinion. If people want to think so, fine, think it, but don't enforce your morals on everyone else.

Of course i can reject your absurd notions out of principle. Why should a modern society be forced to provide "easy access to birth control"? What right does a Govt have to tell employers to give their female employees so called "free" birth control? and at what cost? what if the employer can't afford such a regulation ? then he goes bankrupt or will garnish their females wages or will refuse to hire them altogether even resorting to lay-offs. I effect such a law actually limits the freedom of a women rather then protecting it or promoting it. Not forcing a company from giving free birth control is in no way the same as a society denying birth control as a whole. The access is still their, but the female would have to afford it on her own. Also, lets consider what in economics is known as the "moral hazard". Just like how there is a moral hazard when it comes to Govt guaranteed bankruptcies via bailouts, so too would there be a moral hazard to "free" Govt mandated birth control. More women would under go pregnancy and abortions at a higher rate simply because the birth control is supposedly "free". At the same time B.C would become much more expensive as it would essentially become a Govt subsidy, and like how everything that is Govt subsidized becomes more expensive and leads to scarcity. Then politicians wonder why o new net jobs are being created, because they impose absurd mandates on employers such as this. In all your going to see a MASSIVE permanent spike on female unemployment rates if such a mandate goes into effect, mark these words. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4H9M55c64

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why would a rich land owner buy the land of someone around him just for being "wronged" and what exactly do mean by being "wronged".

It doesn't matter. You seem to presume that, being rational, one would never do that, but the problem in that reasoning is: people aren't rational by and large. They tend to be more emotional than rational, and to rationalize emotional behavior.

The point is not how plausible the scenario is, the point is that it is possible, and that your ethos would allow it and not even deem it unethical. Your response seems confused, unclear. I am guessing that you are being confronted by arguments that forced you to think in ways outside of the clearly define libertarian box. It is a good thing, this is what is called cognitive dissonance, you are holding two ideas that I have just shown to be contradictory. The first is "libertarian principles are always moral and ethical" (not my idea, but yours) and the second is "this situation kchoze presented me is conform to libertarian principles but is deeply immoral". You have to resolve this tension in some way.

If the govt owns the land then it's public property not private. Of course if you don't agree to the laws the what happens? you get shot, you get arrested, you get fined, or all of the above. Of course Govt laws can be appealed as a law is not exactly the same as a supreme law of the land.

As I said, imagine that the government is a private company owned by all citizens equally. This isn't a far-fetched analogy at all, in fact one can argue that this is what they are.

Tell me, in your libertarian paradise, let's say someone owns an apartment complex, someone occupies an apartment without his consent. What happens to the occupier if he refuses to leave? He gets shot, he gets arrested, he gets fined, or all of the above, I guess. Force is the only way to enforce the respect of private property for those who do not want to respect it.

Of course i can reject your absurd notions out of principle. Why should a modern society be forced to provide "easy access to birth control"?

A society isn't "forced" to provide it. But it makes common sense to and is defensible on an utilitarian basis.

What right does a Govt have to tell employers to give their female employees so called "free" birth control? and at what cost? what if the employer can't afford such a regulation ?

Governments are empowered by the people's will in democratic countries to legislate rules to social behavior that it, and the people, consider in the common interest. If the government thinks that offering free birth control is in the public interest, and the people tacitly or actively agrees, then it has a right to legislate this as a condition of doing business. The "cost" is a matter of detail, and birth control doesn't cost much anyway.

In general, birth control costs almost nothing in the grand scheme of things. If an employer can't afford it... he would likely have closed anyway because his margins are evidently inexistent.

Anyway, the way it works in real life is that this is through insurances, so the cost is sunk into health insurance. There are many ways of paying for that insurance. Yes, wages can be deducted, or wage growth can simply be slowed as remuneration takes the form of social benefits instead of income. You can also do this through taxation in a public insurance like many countries do like Canada. That way, since the cost is borne by everyone, it makes no difference if people hire a man or a woman, as the costs for the insurance are the same, no matter the gender.

Finally, again you make the mistake of believing that people are rational, and that thus, people will make these likes of comparisons. I think most would not. In fact, the truth of the matter is that, in general. In fact, in a lot of countries, women have a lot of time off when they have kids, parental or maternity leave it's called. This hurts businesses as they lose workers and are forced to scramble to replace them for a while. Is the unemployment of women notably higher in those countries? Nope. So I would say that your prediction, regarding the impact on women's unemployment, is just plain ludicrous, according to the evidence we have.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It doesn't matter. You seem to presume that, being rational, one would never do that, but the problem in that reasoning is: people aren't rational by and large. They tend to be more emotional than rational, and to rationalize emotional behavior.

Wrong, most people tend to be rational not irrational. The irrational are but a select few that should not be a a justification to criminalize everyone else. Should all Muslims be suspect of being terrorist because of a small and irrational few?

The point is not how plausible the scenario is, the point is that it is possible, and that your ethos would allow it and not even deem it unethical. Your response seems confused, unclear. I am guessing that you are being confronted by arguments that forced you to think in ways outside of the clearly define libertarian box. It is a good thing, this is what is called cognitive dissonance, you are holding two ideas that I have just shown to be contradictory. The first is "libertarian principles are always moral and ethical" (not my idea, but yours) and the second is "this situation kchoze presented me is conform to libertarian principles but is deeply immoral". You have to resolve this tension in some way.

Wrong. Already addressed the point above. Libertarian ideals are always ethical and moral at, worst amoral because of the principle of no-violence ad coercion and respect for private property rights. In your world if i were a employer, I should be forced to pay for the contraception of my female employers, which totally disregards self-ownership and personal responsibility, why should I should i pay for somebodies contraception? I am an employer not a pimp.

As I said, imagine that the government is a private company owned by all citizens equally. This isn't a far-fetched analogy at all, in fact one can argue that this is what they are.

Bad analogy, because a company has shares. Share holders have a stronger say then others that have less shares. An complete say over those that have no vested interest at all in the company. Should I have a say in Apple despite the fact that I am not a shareholder? certainly not. It's really a none argument because there can't be a company where everyone in a society has equal shares its absurd.

Tell me, in your libertarian paradise, let's say someone owns an apartment complex, someone occupies an apartment without his consent. What happens to the occupier if he refuses to leave? He gets shot, he gets arrested, he gets fined, or all of the above, I guess. Force is the only way to enforce the respect of private property for those who do not want to respect it.

He gets arrested, or kicked out, which is good. Not shot, arrested, fined or all of the above as you assume for simple reasons. The apartment complex is private owned by an individual not a Govt. Govts kill, private owners don't. Of course if you just occupied a empty unit, the utility's such as water/ electricity and overall maintenance comes into place and the owner of the empty unit does not want to pay for your mess. Then there is the fact that you don't legally occupy it under a private lease.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

A society isn't "forced" to provide it. But it makes common sense to and is defensible on an utilitarian basis.

So if I'm the president and pass a mandate ( mandates/executive orders are found nowhere in the constitution btw ) and tell all entrepreneurs that you must provide X service because I say so, then that is not forced? Of course it is.

Governments are empowered by the people's will in democratic countries to legislate rules to social behavior that it, and the people, consider in the common interest. If the government thinks that offering free birth control is in the public interest, and the people tacitly or actively agrees, then it has a right to legislate this as a condition of doing business. The "cost" is a matter of detail, and birth control doesn't cost much anyway.

Wrong statist. This is a misconception of the "General welfare" clause. That Govt can provide what ever service or mandate it wants under the guise of common good ignores the common good of the individual. ow as an employer, employer X cannot afford to hire females so his "common good" and right to happiness as well as private property has been violated. The only common good a Govt can provide is a national defense and sound money ( Gold/Silver ) ad enforcing contracts. Under your guise of common good it places one class of people against another.

In general, birth control costs almost nothing in the grand scheme of things. If an employer can't afford it... he would likely have closed anyway because his margins are evidently inexistent.

So why should he be forced to provide contraception? It's cheap now but as i stated several times, it then becomes a subsidy. Anything subsidized by Govt, Health care, education, oil becomes more expensive. Therefore the cost of contraception would o up as the manufacturers of contraception can jack up the prices all they want knowing the money will forcibly keep flow in.... until the inevitable collapse. This is what would happen in the grand scheme of things. It's not evident now, but it will be and there are countless similar such examples to prove this. Such as what happened under the Community re-investment act.

Anyway, the way it works in real life is that this is through insurances, so the cost is sunk into health insurance. There are many ways of paying for that insurance. Yes, wages can be deducted, or wage growth can simply be slowed as remuneration takes the form of social benefits instead of income. You can also do this through taxation in a public insurance like many countries do like Canada. That way, since the cost is borne by everyone, it makes no difference if people hire a man or a woman, as the costs for the insurance are the same, no matter the gender.

Then you kill the incentive to work and innovate. You can only tax so much until productivity becomes non-existent. How about we give you a massive health insurance while massively deducting your wages? mean while what ever is left of earnings is inflated away in value. Also< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EYmDnFrHCQ&feature=channel_video_title>

Finally, again you make the mistake of believing that people are rational, and that thus, people will make these likes of comparisons. I think most would not. In fact, the truth of the matter is that, in general. In fact, in a lot of countries, women have a lot of time off when they have kids, parental or maternity leave it's called. This hurts businesses as they lose workers and are forced to scramble to replace them for a while. Is the unemployment of women notably higher in those countries? Nope. So I would say that your prediction, regarding the impact on women's unemployment, is just plain ludicrous, according to the evidence we have.

People are rational. A select few are irrational. In every country women go on the leave for maternity not a lot. You also make the absurd conclusion that maternity leave and employment ratio is somehow an indicator for employment rates of when before and after a contraception mandate goes into place. Keep in mind when such a mandate comes into place there is always a fixed price for all. Not lower for some and higher for some. Hey if a women does not even want the contraception plan, so what? she is still going to get it whether the employer and female employee like it or not. The same would go for women whom are not sexually active would still get the needless coverage. Talk about wasteful spending. Your saying that the claim that this mandate won't impact women's employment is ludicrous yet your going to eat those same words in the future.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wrong, most people tend to be rational not irrational. The irrational are but a select few that should not be a a justification to criminalize everyone else. Should all Muslims be suspect of being terrorist because of a small and irrational few?

Wow, talk about non sequitur. So irrational to you means... terrorists exclusively? Here are a few very common behavior that are irrational: buying lottery, going to casinos, getting drunk, having children, love, using recreational drugs (alcohol, marijuana and worse), impulse buys, etc, etc... If people were rational, marketing would be useless except to tell people a product exists. That's obviously not true.

I suggest some study into the field of behavioral economics on your part to shake up some of the dogma you have.

The myth of people's overbearing rationality is an artifact of the model. Every economist, even at the beginning, knew that people weren't rational, but they bet that, statistically, they could act in a way that seems rational. It was just a simplification, the "homo economicus". Libertarians have elevated this to the status of dogma, of a Faith. This is a perversion of the idea.

Wrong. Already addressed the point above. Libertarian ideals are always ethical and moral at, worst amoral because of the principle of no-violence ad coercion and respect for private property rights.

So, it seems you have chosen to resolve the tension in your cognitive dissonance by simple ignoring the new idea that forced you to question your old dogma. You choose to try and drag the discussion on another subject where you will more at ease. You just put in the tape about "entrepreneurs" being "forced" to do things against their will. That's sad, but unsurprising.

Bad analogy, because a company has shares. Share holders have a stronger say then others that have less shares.

If you want to find a fault somewhere, find it somewhere else, because on this, the analogy holds. In this case, the government is like a private company where every citizen has one share. They all have equal say on what it does, through democracy and electing representatives (like a board of directors). People who don't have "shares" exist... they are non-citizens and foreigners. The analogy on this is almost perfect.

He gets arrested, or kicked out, which is good. Not shot, arrested, fined or all of the above as you assume for simple reasons. The apartment complex is private owned by an individual not a Govt. Govts kill, private owners don't.

That's absurd. For one thing, it happens that private owners do kill intruders in real life actually. If the guy refuses to leave, he can get shot in your libertarian utopia. Why couldn't he be? And in our present society, people are very rarely shot because they illegally occupy a building. Your argument that he wouldn't be killed because "gov't kills, private owners don't" is on its head, you assume the conclusion (gov't kills, private owners don't) and use that to justify your reasoning, to prove the conclusion.

So if I'm the president and pass a mandate ( mandates/executive orders are found nowhere in the constitution btw ) and tell all entrepreneurs that you must provide X service because I say so, then that is not forced? Of course it is.

You talked about "forced society", society isn't forced to implement a mandate for insurance. It should according to an analysis of the situation from an utilitarian point of view, but it's not forced. As to people who have new obligations, well they can choose to opt out by resigning, if they choose to continue their business, then they have chosen to accept the requirement, as agreed upon in the social contract.

Wrong statist. This is a misconception of the "General welfare" clause.

I'm not limiting myself to the US, but talking in a general manner, like you are when talking about the libertarian ethos. Nonetheless, the "general welfare" clause defended Medicare and Social Security, so it's clear that it's your interpretation of it that is wrong.

I'll make it short, and end it after this message. I'm afraid that you are dogmatic and a radical, there's really no point discussing with you. For you, it's a matter of Faith, not evidence or logic.

Your predictions of impacts of such policies are wrong, empirically wrong. Many countries have systems that do exactly what you claim would wreak havoc to the economy and devastate it, and they work well, if not better than the US. I'm from Canada, I am familiar with public insurance and government subsidies, your claims are utterly wrong. No, subsidies don't always increase prices. Maybe if done badly, as in the US with the lobbying and the like, but not if you do it well. Look at health care costs, that is sufficient to prove otherwise. Government intervention in health care reduces costs, they do not increase them.

As to "what about those who don't want that coverage"... you don't understand what insurance is then. A lot of people are getting coverage they may not want or need when buying insurances, or rather paying for it nonetheless. That's how it works. It seems to me that you are arguing against the very concept of insurance.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wow, talk about non sequitur. So irrational to you means... terrorists exclusively? Here are a few very common behavior that are irrational: buying lottery, going to casinos, getting drunk, having children, love, using recreational drugs (alcohol, marijuana and worse), impulse buys, etc, etc... If people were rational, marketing would be useless except to tell people a product exists. That's obviously not true.

I suggest some study into the field of behavioral economics on your part to shake up some of the dogma you have.

The myth of people's overbearing rationality is an artifact of the model. Every economist, even at the beginning, knew that people weren't rational, but they bet that, statistically, they could act in a way that seems rational. It was just a simplification, the "homo economicus". Libertarians have elevated this to the status of dogma, of a Faith. This is a perversion of the idea.

So having children is irrational? So I guess it was irrational for your mother to burst you out of her womb otherwise you would not be here? I don't see how this world view can do us all any good unless your anti-human. Also people go to casino to have fun, entertainment and hopefully make some good money at their ow risk, same with the lottery. No irrationality there.

Also for "behavioral economics" I suggest you read "Human Action" by the great late Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises. <http://mises.org/document/3250 > It will certainly shatter your world view, as it once did to me.

If you want to find a fault somewhere, find it somewhere else, because on this, the analogy holds. In this case, the government is like a private company where every citizen has one share. They all have equal say on what it does, through democracy and electing representatives (like a board of directors). People who don't have "shares" exist... they are non-citizens and foreigners. The analogy on this is almost perfect.

Not at all because my analogy still holds even with illegal immigrants. Simply because they are not citizens is the same as not having shares in a company. Therefore they should not have a say. Should an Islamist in Saudi Arabia have equal say in Canadian policy? Also, I don't like or support democracy, simply because democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Democracy in its essence is similar to 5 wolves and a sheep voting o whats going to be for dinner. What I support is a Republic, which upholds the rule of law and individual, not collective rights. I would forward you to this amazing piece by the great Austrian Economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe "Democracy the God that failed" http://mises.org/hoppeintro.asp

That's absurd. For one thing, it happens that private owners do kill intruders in real life actually. If the guy refuses to leave, he can get shot in your libertarian utopia. Why couldn't he be? And in our present society, people are very rarely shot because they illegally occupy a building. Your argument that he wouldn't be killed because "gov't kills, private owners don't" is on its head, you assume the conclusion (gov't kills, private owners don't) and use that to justify your reasoning, to prove the conclusion.

The right to bear arms means the right to self-defense. If the illegal occupier is of no life-threat to the land owner, then their is no justification for killing privately.

Lastly, here is a well armed Misesian article on much of the myths of Canadian care http://mises.org/daily/496 and here http://mises.org/daily/3586 . Look your views of Govt mandated insurances don't work, all these generous "common good" programs always end in disaster and lead to very ugly endings. And the Greeks and the rest of the PIIGS are learning this the hard way.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites