Capitalist ParadiseBoard

Dennock wrote:

Unlike those such as Anchillas, Informed consent, and others you just seem to want to drill it that you are right and I am wrong. Don't think that your view is an absolute, as none are, not even mine. Open your mind to those who are different, only then will the best viewpoint be developed. You seem to think that I somehow am not libertarian, how many times must my kind state this, Marxism-Leninism is a form of Socialism but is by far not the only form. Read about how diverse of a movement socialism is. It is about as (if not more) diverse than liberalism or conservatism, and socialism can combine liberal or conservative aspects into itself, i.e. become a syncretic stance with a wide variety of views. Socialism as a movement is united only by one tenet, worker (or employee in the modern sense) control...no other. Don't conflate my socialism with the communist utopian fools who are not willing to be flexible with there stance, I am not that but the very opposite.

Jeez. I did not state marxism was the only form, but rather that it is literally the only one that has been actually tried and tested.

Socialism is a socio-economic system. One that requires taxation and taxation must always be enforced.
Do not be fooled by the implications of this game that such a high taxation rate actually stands.
In order to function to even close to the marginal extent of the Soviet Union, this must be enforced by strict authority.

Have you evidence of a low taxation and bureaucracy (that's what libertarianism is) socialist country that has a performing model?

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I honestly do not care what your preferred nation classification is.

And, I do not assume my views are "right" all the time as you say. Nor do I attempt to drill them into others.
I simply touch upon issues that I come across that I would like to discuss, and that I have opinions is over.
Such is aloud, is it not? Free speech? It often isn't in socialist regions; don't take it for granted ever.

The fact that you must reference two others in your post that is unrelated to the debate at hand...
Especially as I have just come back after a two-week break from this game- like really, man?

I do not care what informed consent thinks of me, and have enough faith and security in my own beliefs.

Anchillas wrote:

I hate the English language. It's so unnecessarily confusing when it comes to spelling and pronounciation.

In comparison to concept of regular vs irregular verbs most verbs in English are irregular. To non native speakers this tends to be the hardest thing for them to learn.

Informed consent wrote:

Says the guy subscribing to the evil mom school of governance.
Few things in history have inaugurated more atrocity than sacrificing people for a common "good".

Meanwhile, you are going to love this.
The WHA is going to amend the WHO's treaty with provisos that will allow it to declare a health emergency in any nation, commandeer its infrastructure, and coerce its citizenry to take whatever action the WHO deems necessary.

What could go wrong?
It is not like there has ever been a regime that hijacked and retooled a public health system to conduct heinous experiments on people.
Right?

Right. I can't think of any such regime.

Gulf Oil wrote:

It is ironic that you use taxation as your example of unlimited federal power when our original limited Constitution required the 16th Amendment to be passed before Congress was ever granted unlimited taxation authority.

No, it did not require it. A corrupt Supreme Court shamelessly perverting the Constitution in the interests of the rich and powerful (just like the one we have now) required that Amendment. And now we desperately need an Amendment repealing the Bill of Rights, since it was sloppily written, and SCOTUS twists its words to essentially rewrite the Constitution.

Midlands wrote:

No, it did not require it. A corrupt Supreme Court shamelessly perverting the Constitution in the interests of the rich and powerful (just like the one we have now) required that Amendment. And now we desperately need an Amendment repealing the Bill of Rights, since it was sloppily written, and SCOTUS twists its words to essentially rewrite the Constitution.

That line of thought is as dangerous as it is ridiculous, and I suspect your idea of sloppy stems from the constitution not reading as a training manual for dictatorship and serfdom.
It is a common complaint amongst authoritarian socialists.
I do agree with and share your frustration with the Supreme Court.
All too often they perform circus worthy mental gymnastics in their interpretations, and overreach in the interest of legislating from the bench.

Midlands wrote:

Right. I can't think of any such regime.

Starts with an N and rhymes with Yahtzee.

Anchillas wrote:

I hate the English language. It's so unnecessarily confusing when it comes to spelling and pronounciation.

French spelling is more confusing to me. Everything seems to have a gender...

Midlands wrote:

No, it did not require it. A corrupt Supreme Court shamelessly perverting the Constitution in the interests of the rich and powerful (just like the one we have now) required that Amendment. And now we desperately need an Amendment repealing the Bill of Rights, since it was sloppily written, and SCOTUS twists its words to essentially rewrite the Constitution.

Perhaps the Justices on the Supreme Court simply understand the Bill of Rights better than you?

Gulf Oil wrote:

French spelling is more confusing to me. Everything seems to have a gender...

In most languages everything as gender. English is more of an exception I believe.

Gulf Oil wrote:

Perhaps the Justices on the Supreme Court simply understand the Bill of Rights better than you?

Of course they understand it better. Midlands is not a professional in that field.

Anchillas wrote:

Of course they understand it better. Midlands is not a professional in that field.

To be fair, anyone with a three digit IQ, and above average reading comprehension can muddle through a legal brief.

Which reminds me of one of my favorite ironies.
The same elitist progressives that will tell you that you cannot enter the debate without credentials on the subject at hand will bring in Hollywood celebrities to testify as expert witnesses because they played an expert on film.

Informed consent wrote:

Starts with an N and rhymes with Yahtzee.

I can't recall any instance when the Nazis "hijacked and retooled a public health system to conduct heinous experiments on people".

Gulf Oil wrote:

Perhaps the Justices on the Supreme Court simply understand the Bill of Rights better than you?

No. They claim that it was designed to enable its authors' greatest nightmare, and that's preposterous. They are just incredibly corrupt. We expect more integrity from a neighborhood drug pusher or pimp than we see in Trump appointees.

Anchillas wrote:

Of course they understand it better. Midlands is not a professional in that field.

It is well document that the worst fear of the framers of the Constitution was a foreign power buying off the president. SCOTUS now says that the Bill of Rights protects the right of hostile governments to make unlimited secret contributions to presidential (and congressional) campaigns, even (as of yesterday) when those contributions are made after the election and are known to go directly into the president's (or legislator's) pocket (to repay money he had previously loaned to his own campaign). You don't have to be a professional to see that it's a corrupt perversion of the Constitution.

Informed consent wrote:

To be fair, anyone with a three digit IQ, and above average reading comprehension can muddle through a legal brief.

Which reminds me of one of my favorite ironies.
The same elitist progressives that will tell you that you cannot enter the debate without credentials on the subject at hand will bring in Hollywood celebrities to testify as expert witnesses because they played an expert on film.

I'm a conservative, not a progressive, and I'll tell you that the views of Hollywood celebrities are no more relevant than anybody else's.

Midlands wrote:

I can't recall any instance when the Nazis "hijacked and retooled a public health system to conduct heinous experiments on people".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

This should help you recall the Nazis medical experiments.

Anchillas wrote:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

This should help you recall the Nazis medical experiments.

What did they have to do with public health? Do you even understand what public health is?

Midlands wrote:

No. They claim that it was designed to enable its authors' greatest nightmare, and that's preposterous. They are just incredibly corrupt. We expect more integrity from a neighborhood drug pusher or pimp than we see in Trump appointees.

Trump only appointed three of the nine Justices on the US Supreme Court. That is well below a majority. The other six Justices can easily overrule the Trump appointees.

Midlands wrote:

It is well document that the worst fear of the framers of the Constitution was a foreign power buying off the president. SCOTUS now says that the Bill of Rights protects the right of hostile governments to make unlimited secret contributions to presidential (and congressional) campaigns, even (as of yesterday) when those contributions are made after the election and are known to go directly into the president's (or legislator's) pocket (to repay money he had previously loaned to his own campaign). You don't have to be a professional to see that it's a corrupt perversion of the Constitution.

Are you discussing Biden or Clinton?

Midlands wrote:

What did they have to do with public health? Do you even understand what public health is?

It has everything to do with public health. Nazi Germany negatively affected the psychological and physical health of its test subjects.

Anchillas wrote:

It has everything to do with public health. Nazi Germany negatively affected the psychological and physical health of its test subjects.

The Nazis were not using a public health system. That was my whole point.

Midlands wrote:

The Nazis were not using a public health system. That was my whole point.

German infrastructure had been nationalized by the end of the Weimar Republic.
It was the pioneering prototype for the nanny states that would come to dominate the socioeconomic landscape of Cold War Europe.

Impressed with Margaret Sanger's work in eugenics, the Republic was already conducting work in racial culling, sterilization, euthanasia, and a whole host of medical experimentation that the Reich would inherit and expand upon.

Informed consent wrote:

German infrastructure had been nationalized by the end of the Weimar Republic.
It was the pioneering prototype for the nanny states that would come to dominate the socioeconomic landscape of Cold War Europe.

Impressed with Margaret Sanger's work in eugenics, the Republic was already conducting work in racial culling, sterilization, euthanasia, and a whole host of medical experimentation that the Reich would inherit and expand upon.

Did they conduct experiments by injecting a large number of people of people with some dubious vaccine or adding something to water supply? That would be an example of using public health system.

Midlands wrote:

Did they conduct experiments by injecting a large number of people of people with some dubious vaccine or adding something to water supply? That would be an example of using public health system.

You are being more obtuse than usual.
However it was used, Germany's healthcare system was a state funded and managed apparatus that exercised abroad authority in medical matters that made it easy to disappear people into facilities that used them as lab rats in an assortment of physiological and psychological testing.

Informed consent wrote:

You are being more obtuse than usual.
However it was used, Germany's healthcare system was a state funded and managed apparatus that exercised abroad authority in medical matters that made it easy to disappear people into facilities that used them as lab rats in an assortment of physiological and psychological testing.

Healthcare system and public health are different things. That's what I keep telling you. Haven't you heard of MPH degree?!