Links for 03/27/17: The next time a libertarian rants about the "nanny state" or a moderate Republican complains about too much government regulation, ask them to read this article at Bloomberg. Occupational sa...
MGB:_The Libertarian ideal favors everyone getting the best they can bargain for. While there are those who complain that this does not apply to crony capitalists, the refuse to believe that all rich capitalists do business this way, most certainly those who write checks to the cause. Libertarian socialists will admit that some type of employee-ownership is necessary, but usually are more libertarian than socialist, which means they can only go so far. Volunteerism is just not enough to make sure employers pony up the taxes to send every kid to school or to force cooperatives to run their own schools.
The Ryan bill failed because it was plainly a plan to repeal the surtaxes on the wealthy at any cost and to finally pass his plan to end Medicaid as an entitlement. He was too clever by half. Of course, the Trump Executive Order which stopped the IRS from collecting the mandate has effectively killed it, but in a way that will eventually lead to insurance company bankruptcy and a single-payer workout. Neither Ryan nor Trump can shoot straight.
Anoher way to look at dogma and doctrine is that there are some matters for which evidence is impossible, so the Church must prayfully come to agreement and once agreement has been reached, it is binding dogma unless a different agreement is reached. This is the case in matters of the Trinity, etc. Teachings about human nature, however, must be based on evidence and scientific understanding rather than reasoning from first principles. Sex, marriage and especially gay marriage fall into that category, as does the worthy reception of Communion (if you receive and you experience grace, your sin cannot have been great OR the teaching on what is unworthy is simply wrong). The age of the defeated argument has no bearing on the fact that it was erroneous in the first place. The protection from error is subjective, not objective. If you do what the Chruch says, you are not at fault, even if the promulgation of the old doctrine was pious nonsense and possibly cravenly cynical (see indulgences). Back to marriage, if one is a victim in a marriage of abuse, alcoholism, rape, abandonment, etc., then one does not commit adultery by marrying again.
