• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There is a difference

Moot said:
The people had a voice and a choice...and they overwhelmingly voted for Obama who campaigned on healthcare reform.
Click to expand...

What was voter turnout again? When the majority of people didn't vote you can't say they overwhelmingly voted for your candidate.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
And San Francisco has private police in certain areas


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Patrol_Special_Police

It does not change the fact that the majority of Americans are served by socialized police and fire departments. Just on a locally regulated level rather then federal
Click to expand...

Tell me, how would the government enforce their laws without the police? Who exactly would go out and bring people in to face their punishment if it wasn't the police? Why are you comparing the enforcer of law to healthcare?
 
Henrin said:
Tell me, how would the government enforce their laws without the police?
Click to expand...

They can have laws enacted, but enforced by private security companies, who charge for the services directly to the residents of the area they serve, the residents decide on which company to hire, based on cost, and services provided. If they do a bad job the next contract they get replaced. Have a regulatory body that oversees the operations of the various companies for potential abuses. If a specific resident wants to opt out, then they have to provide their own security, or be charge on a pay as you use basis (ie if calling because of a theft, and they did not join the contract they pay for the specific service of reporting the theft, and potentially finding the criminal and recovering the property ( expect fairly high fees in such a situation)

If I am not mistaken some fire departments work the same way, when going to areas outside of their contracted service
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
They can have laws enacted, but enforced by private security companies, who charge for the services directly to the residents of the area they serve, the residents decide on which company to hire, based on cost, and services provided. If they do a bad job the next contract they get replaced. Have a regulatory body that oversees the operations of the various companies for potential abuses. If a specific resident wants to opt out, then they have to provide their own security, or be charge on a pay as you use basis (ie if calling because of a theft, and they did not join the contract they pay for the specific service of reporting the theft, and potentially finding the criminal and recovering the property ( expect fairly high fees in such a situation)

If I am not mistaken some fire departments work the same way, when going to areas outside of their contracted service
Click to expand...

First of all, police are not a security force, but an enforcement force, so the basis of your argument is nil. Second, the government would have to essentially control the operations of these so called "private" security companies completely to make sure they do exactly what the government wants them to do. The fact that they would be tightly controlled and have no real control over their own operations would make them only private by name. Third, no one can opt out as that would undermine the entire basis of law covering the entire country.
 
Henrin said:
First of all, police are not a security force, but an enforcement force, so the basis of your argument is nil. Second, the government would have to essentially control the operations of these so called "private" security companies completely to make sure they do exactly what the government wants them to do. The fact that they would be tightly controlled and have no real control over their own operations would make them only private by name. Third, no one can opt out as that would undermine the entire basis of law covering the entire country.
Click to expand...
The federal government could keep the FBI, but local patrols could easily be done by private companies, charging directly
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The federal government could keep the FBI, but local patrols could easily be done by private companies, charging directly
Click to expand...

How does any of that challenge my argument? Private companies handling the enforcement of law is possible, but they would be defacto publicly run.
 
Henrin said:
How does any of that challenge my argument? Private companies handling the enforcement of law is possible, but they would be defacto publicly run.
Click to expand...

Not publically run, just regulated

Food companies are privately run, but governmentally regulated for health and safety through laws, regular inspections and audits
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Not publically run, just regulated

Food companies are privately run, but governmentally regulated for health and safety through laws, regular inspections and audits
Click to expand...

Regulations on private enterprise equal control of private property, which in turns means ownership. For every regulation that is passed on private enterprise the enterprise is being forced to give up control over it's property. If regulations continue to be passed at a certain point the government will control more about the decisions making that takes place at the private enterprise than the legal owners of the property themselves. At this point the business is defacto publicly run.
 
Henrin said:
What was voter turnout again? When the majority of people didn't vote you can't say they overwhelmingly voted for your candidate.
Click to expand...

In politics, silence implies consent and by not voting they get the kind of government they deserve for letting other people make their choice for them.
 
Moot said:
In politics, silence implies consent and by not voting they get the kind of government they deserve for letting other people make their choice for them.
Click to expand...

In everything doing nothing equals not giving consent.
 
MickeyW said:
Click to expand...

I don't think that is a good analogy seeing how Trump wants free health care for everybody too. Do any Trump supporters actually pay attention to what Trump says? There lots of videos of him supporting universal health-care.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I'm sorry but that just doesn't compare with copy/pasting chain emails from hacks. When someone does that, and considers themselves informed, it's a sad (and kinda funny) sight.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry....but I've been informed for years and what I posted has nothing to do with how informed I am....it's all about how uninformed .....you are!
 
Moot said:
In politics, silence implies consent and by not voting they get the kind of government they deserve for letting other people make their choice for them.
Click to expand...

Some folks are just not political, want no part of it and opt out.....others are just too lazy. The flip side of that are all the brainwashed college students and illegals, supporting Hillary!

The dumbest of them all, are the ones who think they know what they are doing, in voting for a Dimocrap!
 
Henrin said:
In everything doing nothing equals not giving consent.
Click to expand...

"Silence implies consent" is derived from Common Law where the silent action of obedience to the law implies consent of the law. The British tried to take over the colonies using their silence and obedience as consent to British law. Of course that all changed when the colonists started to protest and speak out. But had they remained silent and obeyed we might still be under British rule today.

Silence and not speaking out against an unjust law, or wrong doing or perceived injustice may imply consent simply because you're not doing or saying anything against it or to prevent it.
 
Moot said:
"Silence implies consent" is derived from Common Law where the silent action of obedience to the law implies consent of the law. The British tried to take over the colonies using their silence and obedience as consent to British law. Of course that all changed when the colonists started to protest and speak out. But had they remained silent and obeyed we might still be under British rule today.

Silence and not speaking out against an unjust law, or wrong doing or perceived injustice may imply consent simply because you're not doing or saying anything against it or to prevent it.
Click to expand...

It implies very much the opposite. If I fail to involve myself in the political elections of the country on any level then the reasonable assumption is not that I consented, but that I didn't consent to the election of any of the available candidates. Your argument is like saying failing to call any plumper to come and fix my pipes means that I consented to a plumper fixing my pipes. :lol:
 
MickeyW said:
Some folks are just not political, want no part of it and opt out.....others are just too lazy. The flip side of that are all the brainwashed college students and illegals, supporting Hillary!

The dumbest of them all, are the ones who think they know what they are doing, in voting for a Dimocrap!
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what the excuse is...by not participating in the democratic process, the people get the government they deserve.
 
Moot said:
Doesn't matter what the excuse is...by not participating in the democratic process, the people get the government they deserve.
Click to expand...

So their actual reasons for not doing something don't matter to the question of their consent? :lol: And people wonder why I don't believe in the state.
 
MrT said:
You aren't seriously relying on the fact that some people don't have access to a fire department as proof that fire departments are not socialized, are you? If they live in a county with a fire department, then they are socially contributing (through taxes) for that fire department.
Click to expand...
If you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I said they aren't "socialized in the same sense that people talk of socialized medicine."
 
Henrin said:
It implies very much the opposite. If I fail to involve myself in the political elections of the country on any level then the reasonable assumption is not that I consented, but that I didn't consent to the election of any of the available candidates. Your argument is like saying failing to call any plumper to come and fix my pipes means that I consented to a plumper fixing my pipes. :lol:
Click to expand...
Perhaps a better comparison might be..leaving your car keys in your car implies consent to let anyone drive your car...even a thief.


implied consent -

Consent which is understood without being explicitly stated
implied consent

Consent when surrounding circumstances exist that would lead a reasonable person to believe that this consent had been given, although no direct, express, or explicit words of agreement had been uttered.
implied consent

Blacks Law - implied consent
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Perhaps a better comparison might be leaving your car keys in your car can imply that you consented to let anyone drive your car...even a thief.
Click to expand...

Ummm...no.

implied consent - Consent when surrounding circumstances exist that would lead a reasonable person to believe that this consent had been given, although no direct, express, or explicit words of agreement had been uttered.
implied consent

implied consent - consent which is understood without being explicitly stated
implied consent


Blacks Law - implied consent
Click to expand...

What action was taken? The last time I checked staying home and not associating with government is taking no action that would imply I want anything to do with the government.
 
Henrin said:
Ummm...no.



What action was taken? The last time I checked staying home and not associating with government is taking no action that would imply I want anything to do with the government.
Click to expand...
I think that by simply recognizing and obeying the laws made by government that you are associating with government. When you pay your taxes, you're implying consent to the laws made by government. When you stop at a stop sign, you're recognizing and implying consent to the traffic law. When you buy a prescription from a pharmacist instead of street dealer, you're implying consent to the drug laws. Government and laws can only exist when the vast majority of people recognize and obey them by implied consent.

Silence or not voting can imply consent to whoever wins, because your allowing others to make your choice for you.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
I think that by simply recognizing and obeying the laws made by government that you are associating with government. When you pay your taxes, you're implying consent to the laws made by government. When you stop at a stop sign, you're recognizing and implying consent to the traffic law. When you buy a prescription from a pharmacist instead of street dealer, you're implying consent to the drug laws. Government and laws can only exist when the vast majority of people recognize and obey them by implied consent.

Silence or not voting can imply consent to whoever wins, because your allowing others to make your choice for you.
Click to expand...


Do you really think the government gives a **** if you consent or not? Do you think it really matters one way or another to them if you agree with this law or that law? No. Do you think they even care if you obey the law? What are you to them exactly? Well, you're a number that according to their files is an American citizen. Do you mean just about anything else to them? No, and how in the **** could you mean anything more to them? Do they personally know you, have they talked to you, do they know what you think on the issues?

As for obeying a law, no, it doesn't imply anything. Just because I go about my day and not kill other people around me doesn't mean I consented to laws against murder. It just means that for whatever reason I didn't kill anyone in an illegal fashion that day. That's it. Just because some body of people that I might not want to associate with passes a rule for their group and I happen to not break it doesn't mean I somehow consent to something.

Oh and when I pay my taxes that is not consenting to anything either. How many people want to go to prison? Oh, I don't know, just about no one anywhere. I pay my taxes because cages aren't any fun. That isn't consent, but a desire to avoid cages.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
What was voter turnout again? When the majority of people didn't vote you can't say they overwhelmingly voted for your candidate.
Click to expand...

Well then Obama's opposition did a crap job.
 
MickeyW said:
Some folks are just not political, want no part of it and opt out.....others are just too lazy. The flip side of that are all the brainwashed college students and illegals, supporting Hillary!

The dumbest of them all, are the ones who think they know what they are doing, in voting for a Dimocrap!
Click to expand...

And if they want no part in it or are lazy, they lose their right to complain about what they get... or at least be taken seriously about their complaints.

Of course the worst are the senile old people who've lost their ability to think rationally, and therefore vote for Republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom