Sick of the Gay marriage Rhetoric

I think T-Rex reads the Schizoid Forum:
http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2317

Polis wrote:You are assuming that all those people who will not get healthcare will just die without bothering anybody about it, that isn't how society works. You also need enough people to work, and if there will be too many sick people then it will influence you in indirect way economically anyway even if you will not pay for they healthcare.

So we should pay for their healthcare to avoid an indirect cost of not paying for their healthcare? Is it really worth keeping all that dead weight around? I don't think so.

Polis wrote:I think that it is more about valuing your fantasy that you are disconnected from society despite being fully depended on it economically. (not that I agree with everything that government does, and I rather have less policies that add extra taxes to something or regulate how big soda you can buy but it isn't true that you are disconnected from the consequences that society will have)

If I were under some delusion that societies regulations didn't affect me, I wouldn't have said anything about it in the first place.

"If they're going to die then they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population."
Is it Christmas already?!

Off Topic maybe: Have you ever seen Soylent Green Solitarian?

Solitarian wrote:A loaf of bread costs the same for me as it does a 6 person family whether or not I eat the entire loaf. The waste is not a drain on the economy.

I disagree with this.
Food that is thrown away has to be disposed of somehow. That incurs costs (garbage collection, landfill etc.)
It also is a waste of resources. If you throw away half a loaf of bread, that half loaf could have gone to feeding Person X. Instead, an additional loaf of bread now needs to be produced to feed Person X.
Or the labour and raw materials that went into your wasted half-loaf could have gone into producing a muffin or some cattle feed, or in allowing the wheat farmers and the bakers a minute's less work. In that extra minute of free time they could have pursued a leisure activity that may have stimulated the economy in some way. Instead everyone was busy making a loaf of bread for you. Whether you eat any of it or not, it has a cost, and it is very possible that the price you paid for it is not representative of its true cost.

Solitarian wrote:So the government can control our behavior? Doesn't that seem like a bit of a scary president to set?

What do you think government is meant to do? If I look up the word "govern", one of the definitions is to "direct or strongly influence the behaviour of".

Solitarian wrote:Black people are a statistical drain on society, would it be acceptable for the government to encourage black/white crossbreeding with tax incentives/penalties to solve that little issue? If it is, just let me know.

Forced assimilation or the removal of black people from their communities to encourage interbreeding has been done before. I'm not saying it's acceptable, just that it's hardly a stretch when you look at history.

Solitarian wrote:It comes down to what you and I value differently (presupposing you're not merely playing devils advocate). You value the state of society over the individual, I value the state of the individual over society.

No. I'm saying that society values its own wellbeing more than it values yours. How could you expect otherwise? If a society is functioning well, it should be nurturing its own interests. How much interest should it have in satisfying your desires? You say you're an anarchist and not representative of the majority, and you do not seem to have much love for society, so why be surprised if society does not love you back?

javert wrote:I disagree with this.
Food that is thrown away has to be disposed of somehow. That incurs costs (garbage collection, landfill etc.)
It also is a waste of resources. If you throw away half a loaf of bread, that half loaf could have gone to feeding Person X. Instead, an additional loaf of bread now needs to be produced to feed Person X.
Or the labour and raw materials that went into your wasted half-loaf could have gone into producing a muffin or some cattle feed, or in allowing the wheat farmers and the bakers a minute's less work. In that extra minute of free time they could have pursued a leisure activity that may have stimulated the economy in some way. Instead everyone was busy making a loaf of bread for you. Whether you eat any of it or not, it has a cost, and it is very possible that the price you paid for it is not representative of its true cost.

And maybe the bread I threw away was carried to the dump by a garbage service I pay for, that provides my garbage man with a job, and then as it decomposed it nourished a worm that was used to catch a record setting trout that fed a homeless fisherman for a week. It doesn't count when you just make stuff up. Not only did I pay for the loaf of bread, but I'm sure my fellow shoppers and I covered the price of manufacture for all the expired bread the store had to throw away. That's no reason to single out the singles.

javert wrote:What do you think government is meant to do? If I look up the word "govern", one of the definitions is to "direct or strongly influence the behaviour of".

Forget the dictionary, it defines marriage as a union between a single man and woman. The dictionary defines words as they are used, it does not impose meaning on words. Dictionaries reflect reality not propriety. Whats wrong with expecting them to passively maintain order?

javert wrote:No. I'm saying that society values its own wellbeing more than it values yours. How could you expect otherwise? If a society is functioning well, it should be nurturing its own interests. How much interest should it have in satisfying your desires? You say you're an anarchist and not representative of the majority, and you do not seem to have much love for society, so why be surprised if society does not love you back?

That goes without saying. I don't expect society to care about me. I was talking about what YOU care about and what I care about. Not the majority.

Solitarian wrote:And maybe the bread I threw away was carried to the dump by a garbage service I pay for, that provides my garbage man with a job

Have you tried playing any of those city/civilization type simulator games? In those games money is not the only resource to manage. You may be able to pay for a garbage service, but that still ties-up one person in collecting your garbage. Maybe the society has a better use for that person, so the economic cost has to include the benefit of work that the person could have been doing if they weren't collecting garbage. Even if you are paying for its true cost, does society want to spend its limited resources on collecting your wasted food? Maybe it does, or maybe it doesn't.

Solitarian wrote:That's no reason to single out the singles.

Are they being singled-out? I think they're simply not being rewarded. When society wants more singles, then I expect it will reward them appropriately.

Solitarian wrote: I was talking about what YOU care about and what I care about. Not the majority.

Ah okay. Well I just accept that society and I don't get along too well. I assume that we're each going to look out for our own interests and that there may not be a lot of overlap. (I don't think society would work too well if it encouraged people to live like me or to adopt my values. )

javert wrote:Have you tried playing any of those city/civilization type simulator games? In those games money is not the only resource to manage. You may be able to pay for a garbage service, but that still ties-up one person in collecting your garbage. Maybe the society has a better use for that person, so the economic cost has to include the benefit of work that the person could have been doing if they weren't collecting garbage. Even if you are paying for its true cost, does society want to spend its limited resources on collecting your wasted food? Maybe it does, or maybe it doesn't.

Even so, that's an arrangement between me and my waste collection service. I'm still against societal meddling. My garbage man has the choice to be a garbage man, learn a trade, or rob a bank... We don't push people into rolls according to societies needs nor should we. A more oppressive government could very well have assimilated my garbage man into some athletic training program to groom him for the 2012 Olympics. I think that's going too far. We are autonomous agents that are capable of making our own choices. Everyone chooses and competes for their own vocation, and as if by magic it works out fine. The conservation of extramonetary resources is noble, but in the end that depends on the care, and decisions of the individual not the enticements of society.

Solitarian wrote:We don't push people into rolls according to societies needs nor should we.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. How well would society function if every one of its members decided they wanted to work as a doctor? Or if everyone wanted to work as a garbage collector?

Society is most benefited when people fill all the roles it needs. This may mean that certain roles need to be subsidised or promoted, and others need to be penalised or discouraged. Being part of a married couple may be a subsidised role, and being a single may be a penalised or discouraged role.

Society impinges on our freedoms, but to most people the benefits society provides make the trade-off worthwhile. If you don't feel there are many benefits to being part of society, then it is not surprising that you resent the impingement on your freedom.

How many married people here. I for one arent getting benefits from being married other than a few extra dollars on my pay check. My wife could get better care and more often thru SSI . But we are married and i make too much money. So my wife lacks as i do thru being married. So if you want to get married go for it. You may gain benefits or lose them

javert wrote:I wouldn't be so sure about that. How well would society function if every one of its members decided they wanted to work as a doctor?

That would work out fine, everyone would compete for the same training and positions and many would be disappointed when they didn't make the cut. We would have the best and brightest doctors ever.

javert wrote:Or if everyone wanted to work as a garbage collector?

That would be fine... everyone would compete for the same training and positions and many would be disappointed when they didn't make the cut. We would have the burliest most efficient garbage collectors ever.

javert wrote:Society is most benefited when people fill all the roles it needs.

Yes but this happens organically. People see opportunities and they take them. They see a need and they fill it.

javert wrote: This may mean that certain roles need to be subsidised or promoted, and others need to be penalised or discouraged. Being part of a married couple may be a subsidised role, and being a single may be a penalised or discouraged role.

Nope. I don't buy it.