Nearly all of the things you mention can and do exist outside of governments. My community has a privatively maintained road. There are private schools of various qualities. And our food is often still subject to large scale contaminations. Just because something isn't done by government doesn't mean it won't. Moreover, when government does do something, it usually means the tools for doing it yourself are outlawed. For example, it is illegal to sell unpasteurized milk products. Even if you are aware of the related health impacts, it is illegal to sell or buy.

Also, you might be aware but are mistaking the fact of the Boston tea party was actually in response to tax break and not a tax itself. The government was essentially acting as an agent of the East India Tea company, in the same way the modern FDA is frequently a tool to dispatch small time competitors with regulatory paperwork.

You seem to be instilled with this idea if you aren't for taxes, then you aren't for poor people, a fallacy of many well meaning liberal types. The problem isn't the support of helping the impoverished, but the means. It would be the same as me telling you to support theology based philanthropy, and ordering by the force of law. The problem of moral issues is they are exactly like the separation of church and state, by making a moral law you force people to agree with this morality. People whom don't subscribe to that line of moral reasoning are FORCED by law to release their funds or face some pretty dire consequences, including jail time.
If you believe in the separation of church and state, then you should also believe in the separation of philanthropy and state...they are essentially the same thing.


>> ^Peroxide:

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
He lost me at "raise my taxes."

Taxes are an investment in your country's future.
Do you drive on roads? Did you attend a school? Do you expect the food at the grocery store to be free of E.coli? Do you expect someone to answer and emergency services to respond when you dial 911?
When Americans were paying taxes to a foreign state, or the head of the empire, for their imports and exports, that was when taxes were theft. Think of the Actual Boston Tea Party, they were protesting paying tax to a different nation state.
"Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives." -wiki.
I repeat, their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.
I personally think your view on taxes says a lot about your ability to empathize with the community within which you reside. Think about employment insurance and programs for the poor. Of course, maybe you live in a gated community out in the suburbs and the poor are forcibly segregated from you.
Of course, I must add that I do think governments must be held accountable for the manner in which they spend/invest the people's wealth. But frankly I'm sick of egocentric, ill informed people decrying the taxes that are necessary for their way of life, and necessary for to sustain the community of humans beings within which they live.
their is some good discussion over here.
http://videosift.com/talk/Taxes-and-theft

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

He lost me at "raise my taxes."


Taxes are an investment in your country's future.

Do you drive on roads? Did you attend a school? Do you expect the food at the grocery store to be free of E.coli? Do you expect someone to answer and emergency services to respond when you dial 911?

When Americans were paying taxes to a foreign state, or the head of the empire, for their imports and exports, that was when taxes were theft. Think of the Actual Boston Tea Party, they were protesting paying tax to a different nation state.

"Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives." -wiki.

I repeat, their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.

I personally think your view on taxes says a lot about your ability to empathize with the community within which you reside. Think about employment insurance and programs for the poor. Of course, maybe you live in a gated community out in the suburbs and the poor are forcibly segregated from you.

Of course, I must add that I do think governments must be held accountable for the manner in which they spend/invest the people's wealth. But frankly I'm sick of egocentric, ill informed people decrying the taxes that are necessary for their way of life, and necessary to sustain the community of humans beings within which they live.

their is some good discussion over here.

http://videosift.com/talk/Taxes-and-theft

http://drugs.videosift.com/talk/Drugs-Channel-Manifesto

What this doesn't include:
- People doing stupid shit that you'd like to cleverly "blame" on drugs

This could be a non-drug induced psychosis from a wide range of psychiatric or physical afflictions.

Very sad. I hope they called the emergency services and they arrived on time.

*nochannel

*wtf

Hmm, so does the fire department not receive any government funding?

This policy has been in effect for 20 years, so it wasn't like it was an unexpected shock. Is $50/75 per year too much to pay for emergency fire service? Is it worth the risk? If they have an a la carte system, this guy gambled and lost. Sucks to be him, but he chose to not opt-in.

That said, the fire department's policy should be to save lives, put the fire out, and worry about the billing later.

As much as I prefer smaller government, I believe all emergency services should be government services, paid for by taxes.

"Welcome to the world of privatized medicine. A call for an ambulance alone costs over $1000 just for it to show up."

Right. Same deal in Australia, but I think it's a bit less than that.

As someone from a certain country in northwestern Europe the fact that an emergency service carried a (hefty) fee left my mouth agape for a good 10 minutes. I'm getting taxed just as much as I was in that socialist state, too. Guess all that money's going on the great firewall of Australia.

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^cracanata:
anyone cares to explain why it takes so long to actually do something, they handcuffed him and?

they are probably waiting for 'ok' or instructions from central


The aren't arresting him, they are detaining him under the "Baker Act."

Chapter 394 of the Florida Statutes is known as "The Baker Act" and as "The Florida Mental Health Act". A Baker Act proceeding is a means of providing an individual with emergency services and temporary detention for mental health evaluation and treatment, either on a voluntary or involuntary basis.

>> ^Hybrid:

The number of the devil is 666, not 999. You've just summoned the spirits of the emergency services instead.>> ^Bloocut:
(-2 days 15 hours 41 minutes ago • 1003 views)
^
Only one person gets the 999th view though, me. All satanic n' shit like that.



No, it's the number of a man-(Revelation 13:17–18)**-As well as an old-standby for pressing wildflowers, it can also be read!

The number of the devil is 666, not 999. You've just summoned the spirits of the emergency services instead.>> ^Bloocut:

(-2 days 15 hours 41 minutes ago • 1003 views)
^
Only one person gets the 999th view though, me. All satanic n' shit like that.

@NetRunner. Yes, Neoliberals are victims. Conservatives and Libertarians are the evil.

@Psychologic. What if there were people on the sidewalk who see a wounded man in the streets, yet decide selfishly not to help him or call emergency services? You would hope these people don't exist, and I'd argue that 99.99% of the time these people don't. But there's always the extreme circumstances we must cling to in fear that some policy be made to legislate against assholes and subhuman cretins.

The same goes for hospitals that would turn away a man with a gunshot wound. You would hope this wouldn't happen, but it's always possible. Humanity would prevail in all these scenarios, and at the very least the wounded would be brought back to a stable condition and patched up.

Just for some perspective...I've lived in California all my life, and I've never heard of Tracy, California. The good spots still have the free emergency services (but the trade-off is a semi-rigid police state)>> ^Stormsinger:
This kind of thing is exactly why California isn't on my list of areas I'm willing to relocate to in my job search. The disastrous political system there has put them in the situation where their basic infrastructure is collapsing, and having a job isn't going to do much good if you can't get the necessities to stay alive.

To be fair, Wilson thinks our current system gives free medical care to illegal immigrants through emergency rooms since they can't be denied emergency service. He has supported a bill requiring hospitals to report illegal immigrants that receive treatment. It would also allow hospitals to refuse treatment if the illegal immigrant could be transported to their home country without significant chance of worsening their conditionon.

I think his objection is one of definition rather than one of reading ability. He sees emergency room visits for illegals as free medical treatment payed for by legal residents.


As far as the outburst, it was middle-school behavior. I'm glad people in each party disagreed with it, but I think an apology is fine as long as the behavior stops.

Disgusting behavior. If someone calls Emergency Services for an ambulance, someone's life maybe in danger. 'Serve and Protect' you stupid dick.

>> ^jwray:
Why not privatize the fire department while you're at it?

Garrison Keillor talks bout such a thing in the suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota in his book, Homegrown Democrat. In it he talks about the response time for the private emergency services in the suburbs compared to that of the public ones within the city limits. The private companys sometimes take upwards of 20 minutes to respond, while the public ones are there within 4 minutes on average.

And the thing we have to remember, privatized services like security, fire, and emergency medical, provide the service prior to ever discussing pricing then charge you afterwards.

>> ^imstellar28:
1. the fire department functions in the same role as the police department: to protect against the destruction of private property and loss of life. you cannot compare the police force or fire department to a school. if i burn down your house, i am committing a criminal act. if i don't teach your son algebra, i am not doing anything wrong. it is an invalid comparison because one enforces law, while the other merely provides a service.

I think you've got your analogy mixed up there. Committing arson is quite a bit different than not teaching a child. Though, if we were to correct your analogy, and say that if you were to let someones house burn to the ground instead of doing your job as a firefighter to attempt to put it out, then you would be subject to the same punishment, that of being terminated from your job, as you would should you as a math teacher refuse to do your job.
>> ^imstellar28:
2. so if i find a cure to cancer, i'm guessing you are going to force me to sell it to you? by your logic, if i didn't sell it to you i would be using "coercion" if you were dying from cancer. inaction is not, and cannot be, a method of coercion unless you initially set into motion the cause of distress--at which point, it cannot be considered inaction.

How did you find your cure for cancer? Do you work for a medical research company Did you fund all your research privately or receive government subsidies? Did you alone do all the research, or did you base your research on the work of others? Did they receive and government funding? Do you have a degree? Was your education paid for with loans? Are you simply a greedy asshole? All questions that would need to answered in order to determine the ownership of your cure. Some people finding such a cure would be content to give it to the world.
>> ^imstellar28:
3. healthcare is a service. healthcare providers have to go to school to develop their skills. you don't have a right to healthcare if nobody is willing to sell it to you. it is a man-made product which means a man has to choose to share it. you don't walk into a supermarket and demand that you have a right to free (or cheap) food because you need it to survive, so why do you think its okay to walk into a clinic and demand free (or cheap) healthcare?

Do you know that the vast majority of doctors get their degrees through the used of federally funded loans, scholarships, and grants? Which is then reimbursed by the money they receive from their patients. Now if they are able to have their education paid for by tax payers and their patients, why isn't it fair to expect them to work as a service to their community? No one is saying they shouldn't receive compensation, but rather that their compensation far outweighs their investment.
>> ^imstellar28:
4. if a firefighter (legally contracted by the government or otherwise) fails to put out your house fire, that is a breech of contract (fraud) not coercion. if in uncontracted firefighter walks by, he has every right to charge you a million dollars or let your house burn to the ground. if you could force others to work for you, you would be a slaveowner.

Again, like your "cancer cure" argument, you're assuming that a person would only do something for monetary gain, firefighters don't eat smoke because they get paid well, many small communities only have volunteer fire departments, a firefighter walking by would do what they could to help, regardless of their reward. Now let's look at your "slaveowner" statement, if I own a business and employ a dozen people, in a job market where if any one of them were to lose their job it could be months before they are rehired, and I know that none of them can afford to live without the income they receive from me. I as their employer can insist they do what ever I choose, be it mow my lawn, wash my car, or empty my septic tank, certain in knowing that although they have the option to tell me to fuck off, they won't because they can't risk losing their job. I, in essence, am then able to force them to do my bidding, yet I am not technically a slave owner. We are all slaves so long as we cannot change jobs at will.

>> ^imstellar28:
5. free markets don't reward "cranks, liars, or frauds" they punish them with bankruptcy. that is, unless you attempt to intervene with a "bailout" or other regulation which keeps them in business. consumers don't lobby for regulation, corporations do because competition is not good for business, pure and simple. people don't buy products which aren't useful, and people are free to buy whatever products they chose, as are they free to seek legal compensation for fraudulent claims.

I beg to differ, free markets do what they can to discourage educated consumption, thereby rewarding those who can make sales through any and all means, including lies, and fraud. More over, a depressed economy encourages this behavior, advertising get rich quick scams, that only make the person selling the scam rich. Regulation is designed to prevent unfair business practices, such as oil speculation by people who own oil commodities that results in unrealistically inflated prices, or mortgage lenders offering mortgages at an affordable rate then jacking the interest up in order to force unreasonable payments or foreclosures. When you have massive corporate juggernauts like we have now, with a constant influx of advertising, and a culture based on ignorant consumerism, competition is an illusion, and the free market is a myth.

>> ^imstellar28:
6. central government is inherently more inefficient than local organization. the more hands you have to pass information through, the more confusing and costly it becomes. there is no escaping that. a third party who has never met you will never better understand your needs, especially when they are not compensated based on how well they serve you. a government official does not know what is best for your family, nor do they know the best way to achieve it--only you do.

Bureaucracy is present no matter if it be governmental or corporate. It's going to be inefficient regardless, nothing is dealt with on a local level. If you have surgery, your claim will go over the desk of a dozen people at your insurance company just as it would a federal agency. The difference, the insurance company is working for profit, they will do everything they can to deny your claim/service, where as the most a government agency might do would be delay your service.

Too many people in this country have been led to believe that centralized government is bad, that socialized services are bad, that the free market can solve everything. Well take a good look around, millions out of work, millions without health care, millions of families losing their homes due to predatory lenders, and an economy on the verge of becoming the next great depression.

And what do we have to thank for this? A history of corporate greed, government collusion, and a populace too stupid to realize they've been used.

I believe the legal jargon is "when safe to do so".

All emergency services can run a red light, or speed, or generally break any road law they want, when its in an emergency situation, and its safe to do so.

I try to stay out of political converstations, and by no means am I a mcCain supporter....but here, he is absolutely right. He isn't talking about people who need genuine medical care here, he is talking about the other 98% of cases that come into the emergency room. I work in an emergency room full time, it is the only part of the hospital I work in. My job is to create the account which generates the bill, which means I type in the patient's complaints then do all the proper insurance coding, as well as going to see the patient to get consent forms signed. 98% of of people that come into the emergency room come in for things that aren't even remotely emergent (Back pain x6 years, sore throat, cough, fever, knee pain, upset stomach). People who don't have insurance, and know that they have to pay a regular doctor upfront. So they come in and get seen and all the need is an antibiotic. That's $500 (Yes, five hundred dollars) they will never pay. A minute clinic could get them their needed antibiotics for 50 bucks. Also, the majority of people that abuse emergency services (Drug seekers, etc.) are medicaid patients (medicaid is GROSSLY abused. It is unreal). These are costs that you and I pay in our insurance premiums, and the reason why hospitals have to raise prices. We collect about 10 cents for every dollar that a self-pay patient owes us. So in this case, yes, I do agree with McCain (and remember, he is NOT talking about real emergencies here)