I find it inconsistent that a libertarian would force their personal (or religious) view of when life begins upon another person, because that is all the view of when life begins is.

Edit: And as much as I'd like to argue about global warming (which is certainly happening - that much is observed - and I think based on the evidence is highly likely to be anthropogenic) this thread seems to be getting very sidetracked away from the OP. Maybe a new thread is in order?

That'd be a stronger arguement if it wasn't for the fact that abortions are permitted well past the time the brain develops, and brainwaves are detectable... as it is, no opinion on abortion is actually based on any particular science. 

Generally the law for abortions everywehre aren't based on when it becomes a person, but when it becomes a person who can live on their own via resperators and such.  Essentially that you become a person when you stop becoming a parasite. (Insert your own joke about aborting politicians here.)

I'd also somewhat disagree that such a thing is a strong argument that means it isn't a human being. (Even though I am pro-abortion).

Afterall, does that mean living wills should be ignored as soon as someone goes into a coma or goes braindead?

Are you ok with cloning brainless bodies to be frozen for organ harvesting?  (I am, most people aren't though.)

The Anti-Abortion "scientific" argument "Being a Fetus is the first stage of life.  No different then anything else, and if left alone, a baby and person would result in the end.  Therefore being a Fetus is the first step of a person's life."

Essentially, how a Larva is a stage of life for a Butterfly.

1.  Yes, costs are a major part of the issue.  Interesting fact is that countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Australia, Japan, and South Korea spend almost half per capita on healtchare than we spend in the US, and that's a biproduct of providing universal healthcare for their citizens:

And we're a far cry from having the "best" healthcare in the world.

Healthcare, like roads, is an essential service that provides consumers with relatively limited access to competition.  This inhibits free market forces from properly effecting prices like in other, more competitive markets (luxury goods like consumer electronics).  People will rarely refuse healthcare if they need it, and this allows prices to unjustly balloon, which is partially why increases in healthcare costs in the US have far outpaced inflation for years (2006, http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Articles/Pages/2011CostTrend.aspx2011).  This is also why around 60% of those who file for bankruptcy in the US do so because of unexpected medical bills.  

A public or single-payer healthcare system both removes the profit motive driving privatized healthcare and removes much of the bureaucracy and administrative costs that come with a privatized system.  You won't have issues with hospitals having to make deals with multiple insurance agencies, or patients having to find a hospital that supports their insurance company under a fully nationalized or single-payer plan.  Everything would be streamlined considerably.  For example, South Korea has an excellent single-payer healthcare system.

Even in a privatized system with lowered costs, you would still have some people going without proper medical care, and this is not just in today's society.  Should we also prohibit access to police and fire protection based on one's income?

2.  Those who aren't scholars simply won't partake of the offered education.  Even if someone of lesser intelligence decides to give school a shot, if they drop out within only two weeks, what costs have they added to the total?  It would actually be hard for someone to abuse a social service like education, because only those sticking with and passing classes are those adding to the service's total cost.

As for the costs of private vs nationalized education, the same issues with healthcare apply.  College costs are also far outpacing tuition, despite larger class sizes and less services now being offered at many schools compared to several years back.

And the fact of the matter is, a college degree is now crucial for a vast majority of decent paying jobs on the market, unlike several decades ago.  Not allowing someone of intelligence to pursue such a career path merely because they cannot afford it is unjust.

Plus, a more educated society is better for everyone involved.

3.  People who think we're blanketly "overtaxed" usually don't understand the value of taxation, or the value of a society pooling its resources for the common good of its people.

I agree that we are over-taxed in certain ways.  For example, I think the amount of people's money that is spent on funding overseas bases is far too much.  However, I think the amount of people's money going towards our highway system, for example, is perfectly fine.  I would appreciate more of our current tax dollars going towards services that are benefitial to myself and others, and an increase in taxes in addition to that if it would allow for an ever higher standard of living for the majority of the population.  Public healthcare and post-secondary education are examples of this.

4.  Why would anybody trust a corporation with power more than a government?  At least we can vote/force politicians out of government.  If a corporation becomes equally as powerful as a government, through monopolies and what have you, we'd first have to deal with the government's implicit support of the corporation before doing anything to reign in the corporation.  

While young, corporations are held accountable both to each other and to consumers, but once they reach a certain point, both these forces have little effect on a corporation's power.  At this time, corporations are only held accountable to the government, which is in turn held accountable to the people.  Without the government holding corporations at bay, we're fucked. 

5.  The only difference between paper money and gold-backed money is that gold can only be mined at a certain rate, while the fed can print as much money as it wants.

Ultimately, the main issue still remains.  The value of gold is not and never will be universal, and its value will fluctuate based on how it is viewed in the marketplace.   Right now the value keeps going up and up and up, but it's only a matter of time before people realize that the item they have (a shiny chunk of rock) is considerably less valuable than what they're paying for it.  It's a bubble, just like land.  Only, unlike land, people aren't getting loans to buy it.

6.  Letting corporations run wild in the name of "freedom"?

On the contrary, I think you need to wake up. Rascism has been and still is very prevalent in the United States. You think I don't notice when public places have put up end rascism posters and people just go there and tear them down over and over? These people would in no way hire minorities over whites. No way. Black unemployment for teenagers is 41% last I checked. It still is very much needed. The reality is many of these southern and midwestern areas of the US are plagued by this. I live in one such town. It still is an issue. It's not ludicrous. Every generation goes through a civil rights movement, and then the generations afterwords are fighting off the stereotypes that come from that. The 60s were not that long ago, and it has not been enough time. 

You do realize regulation of the economy is needed right? Do you remember when they pumped cows full of TB so it would get fatter? Or when American cities used to look like what Beijing does today? I'm going to say no because those aren't around today due to the efforts of the government. Now for the latter part I would have to say I don't agree with that, they are compensating for shitty primary schools in areas with huge amounts of minorities. If anything, they need to fix those schools instead of compensating for it later. It really is quite a dumb idea.

That I have not completely decided for myself. I am still working out my political views. I'm finding myself to be a progressive and have realized the risks of the deregulated world we live in now. Now the examples you have stated are poor examples of regulation. Regulation in itself is not a bad thing. But poor regulations are very troublesome. Patriot Act and SOPA are examples of poor regulations where the government is trying to limit the civil liberties of the person and doesn't generally know what the fuck they are talking about. You see that's the thing. When the government actually knows the problem they can find a solution. But they don't know. Lobbying from huge corporations to increase their interests cloud what really needs to be done. They don't know they are doing wrong, they have all this information from corporations on bills like those and they make it sound good. Would you say that the Clean Air Act or the Pure Food and Drug Act is bad? These are regulations that prevent companies from doing certain things, and it has helped the populace. Regulations aren't bad in themselves, its just poor ones that are bad.

Now you did mention a rhetorical question of why we have the highest incaration rates. That's due mainly because of the Drug War. Such a stupid thing. I support decriminalization of drugs. We are fighting a stupid war on drugs and it is getting worse, not better. This is another example of poor regulation. 

The attack on our civil liberties is a problem that Social Conservatives have been placing on people for forever. Ron Paul isn't a cure for this. When you remove the walls between state and religion, bad things are going to happen. There is a reason why gay marriage is illegal. Why sexism is still prevelant. Things that directly affect me (considering I am a gay american, and for that reason alone I will fight Ron Paul to the death), and things that affect millions of people. Ron Paul isn't the cure, he's the problem. He's another conservative that wants to let religion into government, and I and millions of other Americans will NEVER get rights if that is allowed to happen. Ron Paul has things I agree on him with (non interventionism (although I'm not particularly as much of an isolationist like he is), decriminalization of drugs, and lowering of our deficit) but there are things that cannot be accepted (dismantling separation of Church and State, and letting Christian rule enter the country, deregulation of the economy). Those are dangerous things, and will reverse everything we have worked so hard to get to. Obama may not deserve a second term, but Ron Paul doesn't deserve a first.

makingmusic476 said:

1.  Yes, costs are a major part of the issue.  Interesting fact is that countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Australia, Japan, and South Korea spend almost half per capita on healtchare than we spend in the US, and that's a biproduct of providing universal healthcare for their citizens:

That's not a byproduct of providing Universal Healthcare for their citizens.  That is a byproduct of the United States system being fundamentally broken and having a 150% different geographic and citizen scale compared to all of these countries.  It's harder for the United States to place hospitals, care centers because of the sheer size of the country.    Every country you listed is about as large as some of our states.   Ofcourse their Healthcare is 'cheaper'.

And we're a far cry from having the "best" healthcare in the world.

By what metrics?  If you're speaking of outdated metrics that the WHO made when they last did their 'rankings' list and dove deeper into this, you would find that they stopped doing prior to most of Europe adopting Universal Healthcare .  Additionally, when it came down to the portion of healthcare that matters (Life saving events, timeliness, speed, etc the United States was the best in the world).

Healthcare, like roads, is an essential service that provides consumers with relatively limited access to competition.  This inhibits free market forces from properly effecting prices like in other, more competitive markets (luxury goods like consumer electronics).  People will rarely refuse healthcare if they need it, and this allows prices to unjustly balloon, which is partially why increases in healthcare costs in the US have far outpaced inflation for years

And how are you making a justification for a single-minded government controlled Healthcare system then?

A public or single-payer healthcare system both removes the profit motive driving privatized healthcare and removes much of the bureaucracy and administrative costs that come with a privatized system.  You won't have issues with hospitals having to make deals with multiple insurance agencies, or patients having to find a hospital that supports their insurance company under a fully nationalized or single-payer plan.  Everything would be streamlined considerably.  For example, South Korea has an excellent single-payer healthcare system.

By removing the profit motive, you also remove the competitive motive (The driving force for improvements, skilled practioners, etc).  You don't get to have one without the other.  Without profit motive,  why improve?  What's the point?   There is no incentive.  Which is why you're missing a fundamental aspect of government controlled anything. 

Even in a privatized system with lowered costs, you would still have some people going without proper medical care, and this is not just in today's society.  Should we also prohibit access to police and fire protection based on one's income?

You still have people going without proper medical care in a Universal Healthcare system.  People always fall through the cracks.  As for healthcare?  Please.  I get superb healthcare for $80 a month.  If Health is important to you,  you would make it happen.  As for people who have no desire to work, or take care of themselves in anyway?  Why should I foot the bill for that?   

2.  Those who aren't scholars simply won't partake of the offered education.  Even if someone of lesser intelligence decides to give school a shot, if they drop out within only two weeks, what costs have they added to the total?  It would actually be hard for someone to abuse a social service like education, because only those sticking with and passing classes are those adding to the service's total cost.

Sure they would.  They do at historically high rates (and a horrible economy and are saddled with huge loan debt and no future career even if they graduate).  It wouldn't be hard at all.   The perfect storm is the 1 1/2 year or 2 year college student.  Very common.  

As for the costs of private vs nationalized education, the same issues with healthcare apply.  College costs are also far outpacing tuition, despite larger class sizes and less services now being offered at many schools compared to several years back.

And the fact of the matter is, a college degree is now crucial for a vast majority of decent paying jobs on the market, unlike several decades ago.  Not allowing someone of intelligence to pursue such a career path merely because they cannot afford it is unjust.

Making me pay for someone else to get educated is unjust too.  Unless I gave my consent for that to happen.  There is always options to pursue college if you so desire.  From Federal Aid, Private Loans, you name it.  Lord knows I've used quite a bit.  You can work two jobs and take classes.   Why is there this notion that everything you need should be 'provided' for you?

3.  People who think we're blanketly "overtaxed" usually don't understand the value of taxation, or the value of a society pooling its resources for the common good of its people.

We are over-taxed. Period.   Who determines what the 'common good of its people' is?  I mean hell, why even make any money? The Government could just give me activities to do in my spare time that are for the good of everybody?  Our founding fathers rebelled over taxation of tea. 

Taxes in a limited and controlled sense are fine.  Taxation the way we have it today is not.  It just steals more of our money.

I agree that we are over-taxed in certain ways.  For example, I think the amount of people's money that is spent on funding overseas bases is far too much.  However, I think the amount of people's money going towards our highway system, for example, is perfectly fine.  I would appreciate more of our current tax dollars going towards services that are benefitial to myself and others, and an increase in taxes in addition to that if it would allow for an ever higher standard of living for the majority of the population.  Public healthcare and post-secondary education are examples of this.

They are not examples of this.  What you think is better for everyone else might not be what other people think is best for everyone else.  Why are you so insistent on other people controlling your money?

4.  Why would anybody trust a corporation with power more than a government?  At least we can vote/force politicians out of government.  If a corporation becomes equally as powerful as a government, through monopolies and what have you, we'd first have to deal with the government's implicit support of the corporation before doing anything to reign in the corporation.  

Again,  businesses run on the people. Not the other way around.  Why are you afraid of a business that is controlled specifically by the market?  If everyone on the planet was fed up with Sony products tomorrow,  the company would go out of business eventually.

 Government has this unique quality towards creating laws and rules that give it continual more control over their citizens.  See an increasing number of governmental declarations of power since the Patriot Act hit the scene.

While young, corporations are held accountable both to each other and to consumers, but once they reach a certain point, both these forces have little effect on a corporation's power.  At this time, corporations are only held accountable to the government, which is in turn held accountable to the people.  Without the government holding corporations at bay, we're fucked. 

All the government does today is take more money from the larger corporations and lets them carry on their merry way.  Which is precisely a major reason why businesses are flocking just over the border to Canada and leaving the United States. 

5.  The only difference between paper money and gold-backed money is that gold can only be mined at a certain rate, while the fed can print as much money as it wants.

Gold has actual value dating back as far back as you'd like practically.  Paper money does not.  It also provides a intrinsic form of regulation for the out of control spending frenzy government.

Ultimately, the main issue still remains.  The value of gold is not and never will be universal, and its value will fluctuate based on how it is viewed in the marketplace.   Right now the value keeps going up and up and up, but it's only a matter of time before people realize that the item they have (a shiny chunk of rock) is considerably less valuable than what they're paying for it.  It's a bubble, just like land.  Only, unlike land, people aren't getting loans to buy it.

It's not a bubble. Gold is stable and consistent.  That's the inflation of our dollar.  Gold is increasing in price today because our dollar is worth significantly less than it was 10 years ago.  It's an illusion,  if you bought 200 dollars worth of gold 10 years ago, it would be worth lets say 800 dollars today.  It's not that gold got more valuable and is fluctuating.  It's that our dollar has gotten much weaker.

6.  Letting corporations run wild in the name of "freedom"?

No one is saying letting corporations run wild.  J

That is what I'm saying! There isn't a scientific point where you can say 'this is a person'. It's partly based on science (such as brainwaves) but also influenced by opinion, religion and philosophy. There are clearly strongly diverging views on this particular matter, I find it odd that a libertarian would state 'my view is the correct one, everybodies choice must be based on my view'.

As for a living-will, once again it is based on a personal view of when somebody is a person. If a person thinks that they are still a person when braindead, then their living-will will probably say to keep them alive and should be respected. If a person thinks that a braindead person is merely a corpse that hasn't realised yet will probably ask for life support to be switched off in their living-will. I don't see how this is contradictory.

As for bodies being harvested - I would, I admit, have ethical concerns about that, but I wouldn't consider the bodies to be persons as such.

@MrStickball. As far as I'm concerned the question is 'When does a fetus become a person?', this question is not a scientific question. Personhood is not a scientific concept. In some peoples eyes it happens at conception - whether they consider this due to the idea of a soul or due to its unique DNA - in others eyes it doesn't happen until later on when human features start to appear. I maintain a personal idea of what makes a person a person, it probably isn't the same as your idea of it.