I'm sorry about the book-line, I cut it immediately after posting. But I meant Executive as in Judicative + Legislative + Executive, only one level above.

Society agrees on your aforementioned constitution by a legislative process and creates the Executive organ of government to put the constitution into action. By doing so, the executive organ of government is THEN ideally split into this government's Judicative + Legislative + Executive.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Didn't get hear the end of the answer, I want my vote back! This isn't about talking points, this is about mud slinging
To make the false argument that government = society is so dumb.

Government is the executive of a society.
At 30 seconds RP almost shrugs his shoulders when asked if he'd let him die. Is that not enough?
@ponceleon, what about everything before?

Ohhh there you go throwing around your fancy book learning! I shuuur do wishh I reed me a bouk!
Ad hominem aside, "executive of a society", really? Like government is the boss and we the people are its workers? Really? I think you need to read a nice little book called the constitution. There is a good line in it about "We the People of the United States" implying a very different idea than the fancy books you seem to read! (this is supposed to be a joking around tone, not a snide tone, please take it in that context, been watching redlettermedia all day )
And @NetRunner, I guess you are right, I did kind of miss that point of the cheering, kind of odd for sure. Matches the boos that he later gets.
Though I don't support the logic of "unless you're going to somehow guarantee that no one will be left for dead", we can't say that about anything ever. Let us try that logic on a different foot shall we? I don't think we should legalize drugs because of all the new people that will die of drugs. I don't think drugs should be legal unless you can guarantee me that no extra people will die. The problem is we are fist assuming that people should be restricted from drugs, not that more people will die because of more volume of people doing them. More to the point, "if" (and it is a big if, I don't think government mandated healthcare is making more hearts available for transplant, as my grandma) more people died from a lack of healthcare then it should make us, as people, want to help all those whom can't afford to on our own merit, much like the same argument for supporting local drug rehabilitation programs. I have had the opportunity to serve in just such a way, for which I am grateful.
My point is, there is rarely one good answer for a given problem, like health care, but when government is involved, only one answer is given. I would rather local communities figure that out for themselves. Speaking of, I have been toying around with the idea of non-profit healthcare for awhile now, perhaps I should get to know some actuaries and make it happen. Is there already such a thing? Am I ignorant to its existence?

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Didn't get hear the end of the answer, I want my vote back! This isn't about talking points, this is about mud slinging
To make the false argument that government = society is so dumb.

Government is the executive of a society.
At 30 seconds RP almost shrugs his shoulders when asked if he'd let him die. Is that not enough?
@ponceleon, what about everything before?


Ohhh there you go throwing around your fancy book learning! I shuuur do wishh I reed me a bouk!

Ad hominem aside, "executive of a society", really? Like government is the boss and we the people are its workers? Really? I think you need to read a nice little book called the constitution. There is a good line in it about "We the People of the United States" implying a very different idea than the fancy books you seem to read! (this is supposed to be a joking around tone, not a snide tone, please take it in that context, been watching redlettermedia all day )

And @NetRunner, I guess you are right, I did kind of miss that point of the cheering, kind of odd for sure. Matches the boos that he later gets.

Though I don't support the logic of "unless you're going to somehow guarantee that no one will be left for dead", we can't say that about anything ever. Let us try that logic on a different foot shall we? I don't think we should legalize drugs because of all the new people that will die of drugs. I don't think drugs should be legal unless you can guarantee me that no extra people will die. The problem is we are fist assuming that people should be restricted from drugs, not that more people will die because of more volume of people doing them. More to the point, "if" (and it is a big if, I don't think government mandated healthcare is making more hearts available for transplant, as my grandma) more people died from a lack of healthcare then it should make us, as people, want to help all those whom can't afford to on our own merit, much like the same argument for supporting local drug rehabilitation programs. I have had the opportunity to serve in just such a way, for which I am grateful.

My point is, there is rarely one good answer for a given problem, like health care, but when government is involved, only one answer is given. I would rather local communities figure that out for themselves. Speaking of, I have been toying around with the idea of non-profit healthcare for awhile now, perhaps I should get to know some actuaries and make it happen. Is there already such a thing? Am I ignorant to its existence?

I meant losing the ball to or failing to break past the defender. The fanciest of dribblers are surely matched by sneakiest of defenders.