Comments for Whakahekeheke's Blog

Comment on Why collectivism will always result in human tragedy by Gloria_rott

Gloria_rott — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:12:40 +0000

sex with roommate bi asian lesbian fisting african american female porn star download adult film jade goddess hardcore sex head wife round ass teen porn ass fucked free daliy porn pic big cocks huge dicks fucking pussy urban ebony amatures ass pics xxx white women two busty blowjob porn star tn ploice officer amazon women porn videos poets pornstars maid sex free movies pam and tommy lee porn gay native american porn britny spirs having sex dubai sex nite life

Comment on Why collectivism will always result in human tragedy by Viola_borb

Viola_borb — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:48:03 +0000

teen amatuer lesbians hard celebrity sex sex and the city opening adult video tgp free sex videoes on line large rubenesque women with huge tits big juicy ass video if i only had an ass brooklyn architect lesbian rachel h norway 69 sex candid sex on showtime contortion bdsm free gay anal porn without dowloading perry county kentucky sex offenders redhead lesbian massage mother porn free best gay sex toys kreme porn miley cyrs porn exoitic women porn

Comment on “Left” vs. “Right” by jaz149

jaz149 — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:02:41 +0000

Reblogged this on mentallyunstableworld.

Comment on How Government Solved the Healthcare Crisis by wally

wally — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 02:12:00 +0000

This is interesting. Also note we have a severe doctor and medical school shortage. They’ve made it very hard to make medical schools in the USA. And existing medical schools are not expanding enrollment to meet demand, turning away 60-95% of applicants. I think if medical schools acted more like businesses, and grew enrollment to meet demand, and competed with each other to keep tuition costs down, we’d have several times more doctors practicing than we do now, and medical costs would plummet. There are less than 140 medical schools in the USA. We need 500 at least, probably more.

Comment on Left vs. Right by Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 06:43:27 +0000

this is not right.

Comment on How Government Solved the Healthcare Crisis by Ed Hertzog (@ehertzog)

Ed Hertzog (@ehertzog) — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 01:25:33 +0000

lystrobot’s reasoning makes no sense. I think she’s more or less stuck on the idea that only gov’t can solve problems, particularly when it comes to health care. She is worried about the power of the rich and powerful and then sides with cartels who did their best to artificially raise prices at the expense of the poor, as this article points out was the death of these fraternal societies. I’m just not following her reasoning.

Comment on How Government Solved the Healthcare Crisis by Nick Coons

Nick Coons — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 03:27:55 +0000

@Lystra: “I might be able to survive an unregulated market so my risk isn’t too high, but that doesn’t mean I can justify the suffering of the poor who will be subjected to the will of the rich.”

I’m not sure where that line of reasoning comes from, since history (and the present) shows that the freer (i.e. less regulated) the market, the more level the playing field between the rich and the poor.

Comment on How Government Solved the Healthcare Crisis by lystrobot

lystrobot — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 05:43:03 +0000

@Luke: I absolutely agree. The success of political systems relies largely on the support they are offered by the public so they are responsible to every single member of the public (including the people who have not yet learned to be self-sufficient). And I think it is absolutely imperative that we advocate the most humanitarian answer – even if it doesn’t last forever. But I am not convinced that the free market is the answer. I think there are significant risks associated with just diving into a completely unregulated market where the rich have an unparalleled advantage over the poor. Being middle-class, I might be able to survive an unregulated market so my risk isn’t too high, but that doesn’t mean I can justify the suffering of the poor who will be subjected to the will of the rich. That doesn’t sound like a humanitarian system to me. It’s easy to be idealistic when you’re not on the front lines of the war. But it’s human lives we are dealing with, and who are we to judge who has more worth than someone else?

I think any reasonable person could interpret this crisis and come up with a very different solution. And if each side is perfectly reasonable, but argue from assumptions that are diametrically opposed, then neither side is truly right and both sides must therefore adjust their arguments to better reflect reality and stop looking backwards for solutions. It’s okay to be a scientist sometimes and refuse to settle on an answer that eliminates the room for other possibilities. Sometimes it’s good to doubt what you have convinced yourself to be true.

Comment on How Government Solved the Healthcare Crisis by Luke Bowman

Luke Bowman — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:47:20 +0000

@Lystra: So you are saying that it is true that the free market provided health care much better that government monopolies, but the fact that this situation did not last forever shows the frailty of such a system.
I see that as a very strange argument. There is not a system in the world that can be expected to work forever, so you’re argument will eventually work against all of them. You’re argument could be used to argue against ANY system that isn’t currently being practiced. I suggest you consider the implications of such line of argumentation.

The success of political systems relies largely on the support they are offered by the public. So it’s imperative that we advocate the most humanitarian answer, regardless of the fact that it may not last forever, quite simply because nothing lasts forever.

Comment on How Government Solved the Healthcare Crisis by Lystra Matthews

Lystra Matthews — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 06:42:08 +0000

That is a very reasonable explanation for why we are in the mess we are in now. However, you assume that if the government had allowed fraternal societies to operate without intervention, we would not be facing our current crisis. And that is a reasonable assumption. But because your argument is based on an assumption, it is then perfectly reasonable to argue for the opposite. I could argue that the very fact that fraternal societies were wiped from Western culture demonstrates that fraternal societies were inherently flawed. I could argue that if they were -without doubt- the answer, then it wouldn’t even be up for debate.

If fraternal societies failed because of human error (government intervention), then it cannot be ignored that human error affects the practical success of a theory. And I think it is reasonable to acknowledge the success (or lack thereof) of this theory historically.

So I wouldn’t be too hasty about drawing conclusions on subjects that are clearly still up for debate.