Re: Medicare Means Test

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gretchen Evans  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 15 Nov 2003 17:19:01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman
>Rubin) wrote:

>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Gretchen Evans  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On 12 Nov 2003 14:18:29 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman
>>>Rubin) wrote:

>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>Gretchen Evans  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:25:38 -0700, "Founding Father" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>wrote:


>>>>>>"Gretchen Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 16:15:36 -0700, "Founding Father" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>> wrote:


>>>>>>> >"Gretchen Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> >> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 02:26:54 -0700, "Founding Father" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>> >> wrote:

>>>>>>> >> >"Bettina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

                        .......................




>Strange that you'd make that statement since there are several reports
>floating around that predict that guerrilla action would flourish in
>Iraq and that we would not be able to control it. 

If the military conquest had been slower, the Iraqi weapons
would be mostly under a fair amount of control, instead of
just lying around.

>>>>BTW, I would include the currently non-violent terrorists,
>>>>such as religious fanatics of any religion, whether or not
>>>>it has a deity or deities, which would impose the dicta of
>>>>their religion on behavior, or threaten people with dire
>>>>consequences if they do not observe the religion.  Notice
>>>>that this includes all evangelists.  Libertarians do not
>>>>tell you to do anything as long as you do not force others.


>>>Going a bit far aren't we, Herman?  who falls into your grouping of a
>>>'religious fanatic'?  Would the Pope be in that group? The Archbishop
>>>of Canterbury?, Billy Graham?  I feel certain that somewhere, somehow,
>>>somone would consider each of them a 'fanatic'. 

>>The Pope is in that group; whether he would continue if
>>that behavior was subject to penalty is unclear.  The Pope
>>no longer takes the position that those who do not accept
>>Catholic dogma are doomed to hell.  I do not think the
>>Archbishop would go anywhere near that far, either.  Billy
>>Graham, yes, and he would not dispute it.  It is attempting
>>to force others, not what the individual believes, which is
>>the major offense.

>So you dislike all forms of religion, all forms of government and the
>associated regulation, etc.  Could it be that you simply dislike what
>passes for civilization these days?

I said nothing of the sort.  I have no objection to people
practicing whatever religion they wish, as long as there is
no trampling on the rights and freedoms of others.  From the
little I have seen of Wicca, there rede is libertarian.

Libertarians are generally minarchist; governments can 
protect people from the forcible actions of others.  The
US was largely libertarian until the Civil War, and even
to a considerable extent until the end of the 19th century.

Civilization results from the efforts of the few who are 
generally considered not to be "right thinkers".  As George
Bernard Shaw, who was philosophically a Fabian socialist,
stated, "Therefore, progress depends on the unreasonable man."
It was the thinkers and entrepreneurs who were responsible
for human progress.

>>>The 'pie in the sky' sounds lovely until it's put to the test of
>>>realism. 

>>Why not try it?  We do not need the Divine right of
>>governments; in fact, the Declaration of Independence
>>argues against it.  Until recently, the US opposed all
>>attempts at secession; lately, it has not.

>Because no one has been foolish to advocate secession.  Let an
>organized group arise and I feel quite certain that they would be
>quashed.. and rightly so. 

I meant secession anywhere.  There has been a movement to
have enough libertarians settle in New Hampshire to put in
libertarian legislation; unfortunately, the federal government
will put in too many roadblocks, such as mandating "enough"
low-income housing and other welfare schemes.

>Try it??  Try what?  There's nothing to 'try', it's simply pie in the
>sky thinking. 

It is not pie in the sky thinking; it is what you totalitarians
cannot understand.  I doubt that YOU could adapt to a libertarian
society; you cannot accept full responsibility.


-- 
This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558