Article: How existentialism can shield us from the free market’s dark side

[Ultralight]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/how-existentialism-can-shield-us-from-the-free-markets-dark-side/

Interesting thoughts...

[catherine]

This is very interesting.

What I agree with: the idea the we should think for ourselves and not rely on government to decide what's best for us.

What I have issue with: the idea that we are on a level playing field with the Corporate Powers That Be. All we have to do is recognize that we are being manipulated and then exercise our free will. But this is like David having to whip out that slingshot every time he goes out in public, or turns on his/her media device.

As I've said many times, when you are in marketing, as I am, you see behind the curtain and it makes you very, very cognizant of the limitations of free will vs. the marketplace, and very skeptical that the masses can fight the manipulation, because they don't know they are being manipulated most of the time.

I like his suggestion of people adopting voluntary simplicity to fight against Goliath of the Marketplace, but who is going to do that? I would prefer to see grassroots "counterattacks" as sophisticated as the ones used by corporate marketing departments. We have something like that in the way of AdBusters and Center for a New American Dream, but they are only slightly bigger slingshots.

[Ultralight]

This is very interesting.

What I agree with: the idea the we should think for ourselves and not rely on government to decide what's best for us.

What I have issue with: the idea that we are on a level playing field with the Corporate Powers That Be. All we have to do is recognize that we are being manipulated and then exercise our free will. But this is like David having to whip out that slingshot every time he goes out in public, or turns on his/her media device.

As I've said many times, when you are in marketing, as I am, you see behind the curtain and it makes you very, very cognizant of the limitations of free will vs. the marketplace, and very skeptical that the masses can fight the manipulation, because they don't know they are being manipulated most of the time.

I like his suggestion of people adopting voluntary simplicity to fight against Goliath of the Marketplace, but who is going to do that? I would prefer to see grassroots "counterattacks" as sophisticated as the ones used by corporate marketing departments. We have something like that in the way of AdBusters and Center for a New American Dream, but they are only slightly bigger slingshots.

So many good points here!

Part the reason I live a life of voluntary simplicity is that I profoundly dislike corporations. haha

[kib]

Like Catherine, I agree with the premise of exercising personal discipline and logic when making market-based choices, but I'm about at the end of my rope because of the quality of information available. The hyperbolic promises coupled with a distinct lack of transparency about any downside coupled with gobbledygook small print that legally excuses malfeasance and mediocrity ... part of the reason I get enjoyment out of tracking my purchases is to see how few I can possibly make. >8) (I'd be willing to bet William Irwin hasn't had to choose his own health insurance plan.)

[ApatheticNoMore]

The free market or whatever goes by that name (that of course needs government to survive as the bailouts show but anyway) dark side is mostly not experienced by consumers who may have a choice (unless it's a monopoly etc.) but by employees who often don't. As long as there is less than full employment and less than really short term transitory unemployment you will have people desperate for work, not to be the losers at musical chairs. Because buy a cinnabon or catastrophe is absurd, but take a job or catastrophe is often a reality, no matter how undesirable or even immoral the job may be. The effect on 3rd parties (externalities) are of course also a problem.

The problem with the cinnabon may be dieting itself which generally doesn't work long term (maybe if done very carefully), but will make you hungry for all kinds of chemical garbage (I mean come now do you really want to read the ingredients on a cinnabon?) out of sheer hunger! Their problems with ads following them is not using ad blocking software, but anyway :)

Problems will all our foods being chemical garbage do become at a certain point a real pain to overcome, so yes you can make all your own food and bring it everywhere (look it's one reason why I bring lunch dutifully nearly every day - the choices are horrible near work), but once in a rare while doesn't even the author of the article long to go to a restaurant without worrying about transfats or something? Don't they want sometimes to be just human, not superhuman resistance, for once? And live in a society that you feel is supportive of human life, not trying to kill you for profit? To let down the constant "me against the world" guard?

[LDAHL]

So we are weak-willed, empty vessels waiting to be filled by the blandishments of Madison Avenue? I didn't buy New Coke, and I don't buy the myth of Almighty Marketing.

This isn't a capitalism thing. it's a human thing. Various priests, shamans, artists, ideologues and other self-appointed Messiahs have been bombarding us with messages about how we should act, look and spend since somebody thought leaving the trees was a good idea. Blaming "corporations" for the ills of the world is like blaming fire for burning your fingers. We have always been responsible for our own choices in the face of all sorts of advice and direction from self-interested parties.

I don't see living more simply as some kind of bold stand against corporate evil. I see it as time and resource optimization. You don't need to freight it with philosophical pretensions or righteous posturing.

[catherine]

So we are weak-willed, empty vessels waiting to be filled by the blandishments of Madison Avenue? I didn't buy New Coke, and I don't buy the myth of Almighty Marketing.



I didn't say we were weak-willed. "Weak" suggests we're fighting something ineffectively, but you can't fight what you don't know.

I'm not blaming corporations for all the ills of the world, either. Yes, we have always been propagandized by saints and politicians alike, but you must be wary when corporations spend billions of dollars in marketing tactics, which, by the way, do work at the subconscious level if not the conscious level. Maybe you're above it, and those who choose not to cooperate with consumerism are more above it than most, but don't be fooled into thinking that the corporations are foolishly blowing all these billions and not getting anything back for it. There's a science to branding, and a science to hitting the hot buttons of the consumer.

[Ultralight]

So we are weak-willed, empty vessels waiting to be filled by the blandishments of Madison Avenue? I didn't buy New Coke, and I don't buy the myth of Almighty Marketing.

The cynical side of me would say most folks are.


This isn't a capitalism thing. it's a human thing. Various priests, shamans, artists, ideologues and other self-appointed Messiahs have been bombarding us with messages about how we should act, look and spend since somebody thought leaving the trees was a good idea. Blaming "corporations" for the ills of the world is like blaming fire for burning your fingers. We have always been responsible for our own choices in the face of all sorts of advice and direction from self-interested parties.

Be careful who you call a self-appointed messiah, because I bet you I think one character was a self-appointed messiah and you disagree with me on that.

I will always resent that guy who thought leaving the trees was a good idea! haha

I think when people blame corporations they are really blaming the people running them and the people who created them and designed them to function the way they unfortunately do.


I don't see living more simply as some kind of bold stand against corporate evil. I see it as time and resource optimization. You don't need to freight it with philosophical pretensions or righteous posturing.

What you call pretensions and posturing I call ethics and speaking truth to power.

[kib]

The manipulation of the masses through the manufacture of fear and insecurity is nothing new. What is comparatively "new" is 1. the ability to pulse that fear and insecurity through vast, vast numbers of people at once, and 2. the idea that these emotions could be used to fuel consumerism, not just nationalism or religious fervor. This expansion of manipulation came about as a direct result of the rise of consumer culture and large scale manufacturing.

I'm curious to see what comes next. We went from "wouldn't you like this shiny new object", to "you could be a decent, acceptable person if you had this shiny new object". Now in an age of artificially boosted self esteem, the message seems to be, "Oh no! You could be losing out if you don't buy the shiny new object! How sad that you would deny your deserving and magnificent self the newest I-phone. (And just by the way, you could avoid the problems of the old one, you could be one of the pretty shiny people on tv who don't have phone problems, if you buy this one)."

[ApatheticNoMore]

So we are weak-willed, empty vessels waiting to be filled by the blandishments of Madison Avenue? I didn't buy New Coke, and I don't buy the myth of Almighty Marketing.


The cynical side of me would say most folks are.

perhaps not everyone has the knowledge to critically analyze media and advertising etc. one might, which is not to claim totally rationality even if one does, but it helps! This does not make most folks empty vessels, that's taking a position on human nature, when I merely am taking one about education and knowledge etc.., what weapons people have to fight back (ha as the old t.v. show went)


Yes, we have always been propagandized by saints and politicians alike, but you must be wary when corporations spend billions of dollars in marketing tactics, which, by the way, do work at the subconscious level if not the conscious level.

I think the amount of propaganda people are exposed to me may be at record levels, a question of quantity. I think the main thing is to avoid advertising whenever possible, it's not 100% possible, billboards are in your face on the commute to work etc., yes I said whenever possible, don't watch ads etc..

The advertisers may overstate their claims of what advertising can do, they too are biased, to justify their paycheck (even if not morally ...). But it likely has some effect.

[JaneV2.0]

Corporations can ply me with blandishments--sometimes i happily buy their shiny objects--I'm OK with that. I can say no, after all. It's when the government gets bought that I get worried. Big Oil, Big Food, and Big Insurance are all neck deep in the influence business, and we surely aren't better for it.

[rodeosweetheart]

. . .I don't buy the myth of Almighty Marketing.

. . . it's a human thing. Various priests, shamans, artists, ideologues and other self-appointed Messiahs have been bombarding us with messages about how we should act, look and spend since somebody thought leaving the trees was a good idea. . .
I don't see living more simply as some kind of bold stand against corporate evil. I see it as time and resource optimization. You don't need to freight it with philosophical pretensions or righteous posturing.

I agree completely about "self-appointed Messiahs bombarding us with messages about how we should act"-- the simple living movement seems inundated with this kind of posturing, unfortunately.

[kib]

Corporations can ply me with blandishments--sometimes i happily buy their shiny objects--I'm OK with that. I can say no, after all. It's when the government gets bought that I get worried. Big Oil, Big Food, and Big Insurance are all neck deep in the influence business, and we surely aren't better for it. +1

I think it's an ever-evolving progression we often don't even notice. Some movie I was watching, and there was a can of drink in the actor's hand. It was turned just enough so you couldn't see the brand. And for at least 15 seconds, my entire focus was on whether it was a can of Coke. Is that Coke? Is CocaCola sponsoring this movie? is that red ribbon part of Coke's logo? Coke coke coke to the point where I missed the dialogue for 15 seconds because they did a twist on product placement. Do I care if it was coke? Do I want to focus on this? No, but there it was, my excellently programmed brain redirecting itself to notice the brand. :doh:

[Ultralight]

I think there is some ego involved. Like some folks swear up and down they are too smart for advertisers and they as individuals they "make the choice."

But I think this is naive and ill-informed. For one thing, decision fatigue is a real thing!

[JaneV2.0]

I agree completely about "self-appointed Messiahs bombarding us with messages about how we should act"-- the simple living movement seems inundated with this kind of posturing, unfortunately.

I agree. There's plenty of useful information to be shared without the element of judgment, but that seems to fly in the face of human nature.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I think there is some ego involved. Like some folks swear up and down they are too smart for advertisers and they as individuals they "make the choice."

But I think this is naive and ill-informed. For one thing, decision fatigue is a real thing!

yea but really it seems more true than not that one does make their own decision on purchases. But again I don't expose myself to advertising whenever possible, so the influence that advertisers have are I'm thinking mostly limited to strategically placed food (or free samples haha - stay away from the free samples!) at the supermarket ... nor did I grow up with that much television etc. (the case that children don't have the tools to resist advertising is more easily made of course).

Decision fatigue may be real so ... so what ... how does it actually manifest in my life? I guess that I can't keep track of 30 Republican presidential candidates and they have all become a blur :laff: I often just buy products I've used before if we're talking detergent or something, and sometimes there is enough to be said for satisficing, so every decision isn't optimal - shrug.

[ToomuchStuff]

What you call pretensions and posturing I call ethics and speaking truth to power.


Ethics, well the definition of that includes MORALITY, and money is AMORAL, and so are a lot of the businesses which are designed to get it. They follow LEGAL, NOT MORAL rules (and sometimes not) and do the time and resource optimization, based on LEGAL and financial (amoral) principles.
If you only deal with corporations who follow moral guidelines, then you will be supporting those that support their churches belief systems, which I think you might have a problem with.

[kib]

Some of satisficing is a personality trait, though. I tend to be a perfectionist who wants to review every choice before picking anything. Then I have the added aggravation / disappointment / embarrassment when it turns out for all that work, I made the wrong choice anyway. I'm working on being less picky since it really doesn't seem to matter at least half the time, but my wiring still has a problem with mediocrity even if it turns out every option is more or less equally meh.

[LDAHL]

What you call pretensions and posturing I call ethics and speaking truth to power.

Whose truth? Whose power?

If I elect to spend less so I don't have to work as much, is that hurling defiance at mighty corporate tyranny or just expressing a preference? I like donuts, but I don't need donuts. So who has the real power, me or Dunkin Donuts?

Why infuse the minutiae of daily life with such drama? My checkbook register, while important to me, is not the stuff of epic poetry.

[bae]

If you only deal with corporations who follow moral guidelines, then you will be supporting those that support their churches belief systems, which I think you might have a problem with.

Morals can and do exist outside the realm of religious belief systems.

[JaneV2.0]

Whose truth? Whose power?

If I elect to spend less so I don't have to work as much, is that hurling defiance at mighty corporate tyranny or just expressing a preference? I like donuts, but I don't need donuts. So who has the real power, me or Dunkin Donuts?

Why infuse the minutiae of daily life with such drama? My checkbook register, while important to me, is not the stuff of epic poetry.

Bolding mine. I think that's a good point. One thing I do to simplify is avoid drama and a lot of hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing over issues that are of little consequence in my life. It's good to be aware of the power of marketing to seduce, but even if you succumb to the marketeers, in most cases you can return the offending item.

[Ultralight]

I agree. There's plenty of useful information to be shared without the element of judgment, but that seems to fly in the face of human nature.

Explain to me how this works.

[Ultralight]

Morals can and do exist outside the realm of religious belief systems.

Careful not to offend...

[bae]

Careful not to offend...

Explain...

[ApatheticNoMore]

If I elect to spend less so I don't have to work as much, is that hurling defiance at mighty corporate tyranny or just expressing a preference?

and if you elect to spend less to hurl defiance at corporations ... hmm might not be terribly effective but ...


Why infuse the minutiae of daily life with such drama? My checkbook register, while important to me, is not the stuff of epic poetry.

day to day behavior is mostly not a matter of epic poetry, in fact expecting life to be constant epic poetry is mostly ridiculous (though there may be moments of epic poetry in every life), but nonetheless people make decisions based on beliefs in everyday life and they can be ethically guided, in fact one might argue that ethics are best as guides to the everyday.

I do think excess is in some way immoral by the way, so I agree with UA. But where to draw the line ... I don't know ... I don't really prescribe that though when the displays of excess get completely ridiculous it gets near impossible to refrain, now excuse me I think I have a plank in my eye.

[JaneV2.0]

Explain to me how this works.

It's my experience that people like to judge--mostly in their favor. It's a common enough phenomenon, but it's mostly counterproductive, as it often comes across as smug and off-putting.

[Ultralight]

It's my experience that people like to judge--mostly in their favor. It's a common enough phenomenon, but it's mostly counterproductive, as it often comes across as smug and off-putting.

How is that not judgmental in itself?

Here is what I think: I think everyone judges. Some just say it out loud while others judge quietly. You judge judgmental people and say they come off as smug.

How can someone say "I am totally against abortion!" but not be judging someone who gets abortions or supports abortions?

How can someone say "The Yankees are the greatest baseball team ever!" without judging the fans of the Mariners or the Blue Jays?

So can someone be like "I am totally against abortion but I think you're a fine person for getting several of them each year?"

Uh... no.


I think that there is a need for what I call "adulthood" when it comes to judging. Controversial? Yes, I know.

My vegan friends dislike that I fish and eat my catch. But as an adult I can recognize their judgment -- even understand it -- and not care or be effected by it. Do I whine to them about how their judgmental ways bother be so? No.

The ultimate remedy for someone judging you is confidence.

[Alan]

Explain to me how this works.Live and let live.

[Ultralight]

Live and let live.

Literally?

[Alan]

Literally?
Yes

[Ultralight]

Yes

I agree with that, obviously.

But what about a hot button issue like abortion? Would you like to make it illegal or would you rather "live and let live" if that means women can just go on getting abortions on demand?

[bae]

But what about a hot button issue like abortion? Would you like to make it illegal or would you rather "live and let live" if that means women can just go on getting abortions on demand?

I suppose that depends upon your moral principles.

[JaneV2.0]

Abortion is legal. Women have sovereignty over their bodies. "Abortion on demand" is a Fox News talking point. For all practical purposes, the only late term abortions performed are medical necessities. I can't imagine why anyone thinks such a personal decision is anyone's business but that of the woman considering one.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter, but their opinion is essentially moot.

[Ultralight]

I suppose that depends upon your moral principles.

For the record, I support a woman's right to choose and I think abortions should be government-subsidized.

I was just using that example because it is so controversial and often contended.

[Ultralight]

Abortion is legal. Women have sovereignty over their bodies. "Abortion on demand" is a Fox News talking point. For all practical purposes, the only late term abortions performed are medical necessities. I can't imagine why anyone thinks such a personal decision is anyone's business but that of the woman considering one.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter, but their opinion is essentially moot.

Nope. No it is not. The right to choose is being eroded across the country. Some people judge women for having or even wanting/planning to have an abortion and that judgement often leads to them doing things to erode the right to choose.

Do you think that one's opinion on prostitution is moot?

[Alan]

I agree with that, obviously.

But what about a hot button issue like abortion? Would you like to make it illegal or would you rather "live and let live" if that means women can just go on getting abortions on demand?On that issue, I'd prefer that everyone live and let live.

[bae]

For the record, I support a woman's right to choose and I think abortions should be government-subsidized.


For the record, I support a woman's right to control her own body, and believe her rights trump those of an unborn human inhabiting her body against her will, so if she wishes to kill that human, I won't stop her by force.

Similarly, I am unwilling to use force to extract funds from other people against *their* will in order to fund the woman's procedure.

[LDAHL]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter, but their opinion is essentially moot.

I don't think anyone's opinion (at least anyone who votes) is moot in a democracy that can change opinion into law. Look at same sex marriage, for instance. While I think that morality and legality are two different things, public opinion derived from the prevailing views on what is moral often drive the law. Our moral views on abortion, private ownership of firearms, cockfights, drugs and free speech all figure into the pressure we put on lawmakers.

[Ultralight]

For the record, I support a woman's right to control her own body, and believe her rights trump those of an unborn human inhabiting her body against her will, so if she wishes to kill that human, I won't stop her by force.

Similarly, I am unwilling to use force to extract funds from other people against *their* will in order to fund the woman's procedure.

Are you willing to extract funds by force for any other healthcare procedure that people would get?

[Ultralight]

I don't think anyone's opinion (at least anyone who votes) is moot in a democracy that can change opinion into law. Look at same sex marriage, for instance. While I think that morality and legality are two different things, public opinion derived from the prevailing views on what is moral often drive the law. Our moral views on abortion, private ownership of firearms, cockfights, drugs and free speech all figure into the pressure we put on lawmakers.

So we judge people and what they do as wrong or right. Then we vote on whether it is legal or illegal. Then when things we judged to be wrong are made illegal and someone engages in this activity society punishes them. Do I understand this correctly?

[Ultralight]

On that issue, I'd prefer that everyone live and let live.

But you would not vote for or support laws banning abortions?

[LDAHL]

So we judge people and what they do as wrong or right. Then we vote on whether it is legal or illegal. Then when things we judged to be wrong are made illegal and someone engages in this activity society punishes them. Do I understand this correctly?

Imperfectly and perhaps not terribly efficiently, but yes. If enough voters decided that bullfighting was fine, but foie gras was evil and should be banned, lawmakers would eventually see advantages to altering the law accordingly. The American system does have certain features aimed at checking "the tyranny of the majority", but they are by no means totally effective.

[Ultralight]

Imperfectly and perhaps not terribly efficiently, but yes. If enough voters decided that bullfighting was fine, but foie gras was evil and should be banned, lawmakers would eventually see advantages to altering the law accordingly. The American system does have certain features aimed at checking "the tyranny of the majority", but they are by no means totally effective.

Okay.

[LDAHL]

Okay.

I think talking about "settled law" the way the President sometimes does is as ridiculous as talking about "settled science". Nothing is really permanent in either arena.

[Ultralight]

My point was just that when people condemn others for "judging" or say things like "live and let live" they are, in fact, saying one thing and doing another.

Everyone judges. Most people are not really willing to "live and let live." Just look how people vote.

[Ultralight]

Science is not totally settled, but on many things we act as though it is (because it is darned close, perhaps as close as possible).

If you get an acute bacterial infection I bet you'll take antibiotics. Right?

You would not be like: "Hmmm... the science isn't settled on antibiotics curing most bacterial infections. So I'll just wait and see..."

[LDAHL]

Science is not totally settled, but on many things we act as though it is (because it is darned close, perhaps as close as possible).

If you get an acute bacterial infection I bet you'll take antibiotics. Right?

You would not be like: "Hmmm... the science isn't settled on antibiotics curing most bacterial infections. So I'll just wait and see..."

Of course saying nothing is really settled in science doesn't invalidate science. It just means the current thinking isn't holy writ.

[Ultralight]

Of course saying nothing is really settled in science doesn't invalidate science. It just means the current thinking isn't holy writ.

I am not a big fan of science.

[Alan]

But you would not vote for or support laws banning abortions?
I would likely support any law which put the life of the unborn into account, just as I always inject the victim of abortion into conversations which almost always center around the "rights" of the mother.


Everyone judges. Most people are not really willing to "live and let live." Just look how people vote.
So, you've judged my reaction to your question before I had a chance to respond?

[Ultralight]

I would likely support any law which put the life of the unborn into account, just as I always inject the victim of abortion into conversations which almost always center around the "rights" of the mother.


So, you've judged my reaction to your question before I had a chance to respond?

So you'd support a law that made a woman getting an abortion a criminal who could be punished for undergoing the medical procedure?

[Alan]

So you'd support a law that made a woman getting an abortion a criminal who could be punished for undergoing the medical procedure?
I'm not sure what response you're looking for although I'll assume you're hoping to expose some sort of hypocrisy or exhibit an aura of enlightenment others may lack. All I can tell you is that if a fetus has reached the stage of viability (and viability is getting earlier and earlier), it should be considered human and subject to the same right to life that you or I enjoy.

By the way, if you want to turn the discussion to this topic, it would best fit into the Politics section. Please let me know your intention and I'll ensure it resides in the correct place.

[LDAHL]

I'm not sure what response you're looking for although I'll assume you're hoping to expose some sort of hypocrisy or exhibit an aura of enlightenment others may lack. All I can tell you is that if a fetus has reached the stage of viability (and viability is getting earlier and earlier), it should be considered human and subject to the same right to life that you or I enjoy.

By the way, if you want to turn the discussion to this topic, it would best fit into the Politics section. Please let me know your intention and I'll ensure it resides in the correct place.

I'm in agreement with Alan. The legality of abortion hinges on whether a fetus is a human being. In Roe v. Wade, the court ruled otherwise, but obviously a significant portion of the population disagrees with that premise.

[bae]

Are you willing to extract funds by force for any other healthcare procedure that people would get?

No.

[Ultralight]

No.

So no medicaid?

[Ultralight]

I'm not sure what response you're looking for although I'll assume you're hoping to expose some sort of hypocrisy or exhibit an aura of enlightenment others may lack. All I can tell you is that if a fetus has reached the stage of viability (and viability is getting earlier and earlier), it should be considered human and subject to the same right to life that you or I enjoy.

By the way, if you want to turn the discussion to this topic, it would best fit into the Politics section. Please let me know your intention and I'll ensure it resides in the correct place.

Live and let live. Gotcha.

[bae]

So no medicaid?

Do you want to play this game all day? My words were pretty simple, and in English.

[Ultralight]

Do you want to play this game all day? My words were pretty simple, and in English.

No, not needed.

[bae]

I'm in agreement with Alan. The legality of abortion hinges on whether a fetus is a human being.

I think the more useful and nuanced approach to the argument is to consider the rights and interests of the involved parties, proceeding as if the fetus is a human being from the very moment of conception,

[LDAHL]

I think the more useful and nuanced approach to the argument is to consider the rights and interests of the involved parties, proceeding as if the fetus is a human being from the very moment of conception,

If we assume the fetus to be human from conception, and essentially a sort of inadvertent trespasser in the mother's womb, wouldn't the law that applied be similar to that for other trespass situations? A sort of uterine castle doctrine?

[Alan]

If we assume the fetus to be human from conception, and essentially a sort of inadvertent trespasser in the mother's womb, wouldn't the law that applied be similar to that for other trespass situations? A sort of uterine castle doctrine?
I would think not, unless it is considered trespass to be dropped off and then held against your will.

[Gregg]

Are you willing to extract funds by force for any other healthcare procedure that people would get?

What about forcibly extracting funds for healthcare insurance?

[Ultralight]

What about forcibly extracting funds for healthcare insurance?

I prefer a single payer system without health insurance and such.

[iris lilies]

What about forcibly extracting funds for healthcare insurance?

You mean the assault to my liberty, the one thing that Obabamacare changes forever? The rest of
Obamacare is politics and noise, depending on what side one is on. But that "tax" for being a citizen residing on US grounds is pretty astonishing to me still as I think about it. And
I don't mean "astonishing" in a good way.

[bae]

What about forcibly extracting funds for healthcare insurance?

Nope.

[bae]

I prefer a single payer system without health insurance and such.

And where does the money come from to fund that single-payer system?

[Alan]

And where does the money come from to fund that single-payer system?
Now, now bae, you've been here long enough to know that it's free. ;)

[bae]

Now, now bae, you've been here long enough to know that it's free. ;)

I thought we had all decided that you were the single-payer :-)

[TVRodriguez]

My uterus is an organ in my body. So is my kidney. If you, a fully adult human needed a kidney or you would die, and if my kidney were the only match in the world, I could refuse to give you my kidney. I would not even need a reason.

Same goes for my uterus and any other organism. It's mine, and I have the right to refuse service. To anyone.

[ToomuchStuff]

Morals can and do exist outside the realm of religious belief systems.

They do, but I do not see many businesses have their morals listed in their mission statements. Those that I have seen, generally have some sort of a religious basis to them (either hiring from a denomination, funded by a religious organization, started by someone with very specific beliefs and not a public corporation, etc). Those that are public, while they might have a code of conduct, a lot of that is based on laws of the land, but the morals they are following, could be as fluid as their CEO/board of directors.

Didn't realize how far this would get off the topic, or how many pages I would have to catch up through, then decide to avoid........