NC New Welfare Drug Test Law: 1/3rd Tested Positive from Sample.

[Publius1787]

What else does government do?

It protects our rights. This is the key difference between a libertarian outlook and modern conservatism, and it's why I see little material difference between Democrats and Republicans. Libertarians believe government is there to protect our freedom to live the way we want, not to decide how we should live and push us in that direction.

As Moonglow pointed out, this is the same perspective that progressives embrace. You just have a different list of 'shoulds'.

Good answer. Now how do you protect someone's rights without curbing behavior? The problem with libertarians is that they are blinded by strict ideology to the point that they do not realize that even defending the liberties of others requires the state to provide behavior incentives to forgo liberty sapping behavior. What is the murders incentive not to murder? The robbers incentive not to rob? You see, the state does little more than enacting laws to sanction behavior. We can argue over what behavior should be sanctioned and what behavior should not, but in every case the state is in the human behavior manipulating business; even if you're a libertarian.

To protect our rights, government only needs to curb behavior that violates our rights.

I never argued otherwise. I only said that government is in the behavior manipulating business. You disagreed. Now you agree.

That's a specious argument. I said the job of government is to protect our rights. You're saying it's to encourage 'desired' behavior. Those are very different things. Encouraging desired behavior is much broader, and much more invasive, than protecting our rights.

Now with respect to all my previous arguments in this thread, they are made not in a perfect world, but with the realist understanding that the society you advocate for is impossible given our current political situation. It will continue to be impossible in our lifetimes. So, I have the choice of being a strict libertarian ideologue or a conservative realist. The latter is far more practical and the former will only make me look like a moron who fails to take into account the political environmental situation in which I find myself.

What I advocate really has nothing to do with the argument you are making. But for the record, libertarians aren't fixated on any specific kind of 'libertarian' society. That's sort of the point. We're just advocating for more freedom, rather than less. That's not impossible.

You said "It's no different in my view. Government shouldn't spend its time, and our money, concocting schemes to manipulate our behavior."

I responded "What else does government do?"

Whether your a libertarian, liberal, socialist, conservative the government will always be conducting schemes to manipulate our behavior. Government is and has always been force, the only difference of opinion is how that force should be used.

 

[Moonglow]

I only did it when construction fell off the charts during recessions.....

Drugs or welfare?

Just kidding...

Either.....they both work for those in need.....or do like we did being poor in Okiehoma, eat brown beans all the time...but after becoming a contractor in masonry construction, shit I could earn a couple of grand a week..So I could do better drugs than what welfare will get ya......

 

[Vandalshandle]

Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.

Who's the math genius here?

sample

False. the 21 positives came out of only a population of people who have been doing drugs in the past:


"Social workers ask those being screened about drug use in the previous 12 months to determine whether to refer them for testing. People convicted of felony drug offenses in the three years before applying for benefits are also referred."

This means that 30 percent of druggies still can't pass a test. There were 21 positives out of 7,600 tested, which comes to .002 of those tested were found to test positive. The whole article was written in such a way as to lead one to false statistical conclusions. Put another way, assuming that each test cost $100, the state spent $760,000 to find 21 drug users, or $36,190 each!

 

[dblack]

It protects our rights. This is the key difference between a libertarian outlook and modern conservatism, and it's why I see little material difference between Democrats and Republicans. Libertarians believe government is there to protect our freedom to live the way we want, not to decide how we should live and push us in that direction.

As Moonglow pointed out, this is the same perspective that progressives embrace. You just have a different list of 'shoulds'.

Good answer. Now how do you protect someone's rights without curbing behavior? The problem with libertarians is that they are blinded by strict ideology to the point that they do not realize that even defending the liberties of others requires the state to provide behavior incentives to forgo liberty sapping behavior. What is the murders incentive not to murder? The robbers incentive not to rob? You see, the state does little more than enacting laws to sanction behavior. We can argue over what behavior should be sanctioned and what behavior should not, but in every case the state is in the human behavior manipulating business; even if you're a libertarian.

To protect our rights, government only needs to curb behavior that violates our rights.

I never argued otherwise. I only said that government is in the behavior manipulating business. You disagreed. Now you agree.

That's a specious argument. I said the job of government is to protect our rights. You're saying it's to encourage 'desired' behavior. Those are very different things. Encouraging desired behavior is much broader, and much more invasive, than protecting our rights.

Now with respect to all my previous arguments in this thread, they are made not in a perfect world, but with the realist understanding that the society you advocate for is impossible given our current political situation. It will continue to be impossible in our lifetimes. So, I have the choice of being a strict libertarian ideologue or a conservative realist. The latter is far more practical and the former will only make me look like a moron who fails to take into account the political environmental situation in which I find myself.

What I advocate really has nothing to do with the argument you are making. But for the record, libertarians aren't fixated on any specific kind of 'libertarian' society. That's sort of the point. We're just advocating for more freedom, rather than less. That's not impossible.

You said "It's no different in my view. Government shouldn't spend its time, and our money, concocting schemes to manipulate our behavior."

I responded "What else does government do?"

Whether your a libertarian, liberal, socialist, conservative the government will always be conducting schemes to manipulate our behavior. Government is and has always been force, the only difference of opinion is how that force should be used.

Exactly. Should it be used to protect our rights, or to encourage desired behavior?

 

[Publius1787]

Good answer. Now how do you protect someone's rights without curbing behavior? The problem with libertarians is that they are blinded by strict ideology to the point that they do not realize that even defending the liberties of others requires the state to provide behavior incentives to forgo liberty sapping behavior. What is the murders incentive not to murder? The robbers incentive not to rob? You see, the state does little more than enacting laws to sanction behavior. We can argue over what behavior should be sanctioned and what behavior should not, but in every case the state is in the human behavior manipulating business; even if you're a libertarian.

To protect our rights, government only needs to curb behavior that violates our rights.

I never argued otherwise. I only said that government is in the behavior manipulating business. You disagreed. Now you agree.

That's a specious argument. I said the job of government is to protect our rights. You're saying it's to encourage 'desired' behavior. Those are very different things. Encouraging desired behavior is much broader, and much more invasive, than protecting our rights.

Now with respect to all my previous arguments in this thread, they are made not in a perfect world, but with the realist understanding that the society you advocate for is impossible given our current political situation. It will continue to be impossible in our lifetimes. So, I have the choice of being a strict libertarian ideologue or a conservative realist. The latter is far more practical and the former will only make me look like a moron who fails to take into account the political environmental situation in which I find myself.

What I advocate really has nothing to do with the argument you are making. But for the record, libertarians aren't fixated on any specific kind of 'libertarian' society. That's sort of the point. We're just advocating for more freedom, rather than less. That's not impossible.

You said "It's no different in my view. Government shouldn't spend its time, and our money, concocting schemes to manipulate our behavior."

I responded "What else does government do?"

Whether your a libertarian, liberal, socialist, conservative the government will always be conducting schemes to manipulate our behavior. Government is and has always been force, the only difference of opinion is how that force should be used.

Exactly. Should it be used to protect our rights, or to encourage desired behavior?

You cant do one without the other. They are one in the same. You cannot protect the rights of others without manipulating behavior through the threat of government force.

 

[easyt65]

...just because rightwingnuts like humiliating people for being poor ...

This thread is not about people being poor...or poor people needing welfare. It is about people on tax-payer funded programs while using a portion of that money to pay for illegal drugs.

WHY do liberals hate enforcing the law, refuse to hold anyone accountable, and like portraying those who break the law as 'victims'?

A person is caught illegally doing drugs and is receiving tax payer-funded benefits while doing so, and a 'liberal nutbag' tries to pain the guy as a 'victim' while attacking those who want to enforce the law / hold the law-breakers somehow accountable....

That's just funny as hell....and pathetic....right there. It demonstrates one of the reasons why this country has gotten so F*ed up.

 

[Publius1787]

Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.

Who's the math genius here?

sample

False. the 21 positives came out of only a population of people who have been doing drugs in the past:


"Social workers ask those being screened about drug use in the previous 12 months to determine whether to refer them for testing. People convicted of felony drug offenses in the three years before applying for benefits are also referred."

This means that 30 percent of druggies still can't pass a test. There were 21 positives out of 7,600 tested, which comes to .002 of those tested were found to test positive. The whole article was written in such a way as to lead one to false statistical conclusions. Put another way, assuming that each test cost $100, the state spent $760,000 to find 21 drug users, or $36,190 each!

Wrong, there were 21 positives out of 7600 screened. Only 89 were tested. Thus there were 21 out of 89 tested.

 

[Publius1787]

...just because rightwingnuts like humiliating people for being poor ...

WHY do liberals hate enforcing the law, refuse to hold anyone accountable, and like portraying those who break the law as 'victims'?

A person is caught illegally doing drugs and is receiving tax payer-funded benefits while doing so, and a 'liberal nutbag' tries to pain the guy as a 'victim' while attacking those who want to enforce the law / hold the law-breakers somehow accountable....

That's just funny as hell....and pathetic....right there. It demonstrates one of the reasons why this country has gotten so F*ed up.

They need to get their votes from someone.

 

[Vandalshandle]

...just because rightwingnuts like humiliating people for being poor ...

WHY do liberals hate enforcing the law, refuse to hold anyone accountable, and like portraying those who break the law as 'victims'?

A person is caught illegally doing drugs and is receiving tax payer-funded benefits while doing so, and a 'liberal nutbag' tries to pain the guy as a 'victim' while attacking those who want to enforce the law / hold the law-breakers somehow accountable....

That's just funny as hell....and pathetic....right there. It demonstrates one of the reasons why this country has gotten so F*ed up.

...and you, on the other hand, have no problem with innocent kids going without food, because their dad does drugs...

 

[Publius1787]

...just because rightwingnuts like humiliating people for being poor ...

WHY do liberals hate enforcing the law, refuse to hold anyone accountable, and like portraying those who break the law as 'victims'?

A person is caught illegally doing drugs and is receiving tax payer-funded benefits while doing so, and a 'liberal nutbag' tries to pain the guy as a 'victim' while attacking those who want to enforce the law / hold the law-breakers somehow accountable....

That's just funny as hell....and pathetic....right there. It demonstrates one of the reasons why this country has gotten so F*ed up.

...and you, on the other hand, have no problem with innocent kids going without food, because their dad does drugs...

I would venture to say that the majority of children on welfare are fatherless anyway, sooooooo . But I called your argument in another thread when I supported revoking benefits for failure to keep your legs shut while single and on welfare.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.

Who's the math genius here?

sample

False. the 21 positives came out of only a population of people who have been doing drugs in the past:


"Social workers ask those being screened about drug use in the previous 12 months to determine whether to refer them for testing. People convicted of felony drug offenses in the three years before applying for benefits are also referred."

This means that 30 percent of druggies still can't pass a test. There were 21 positives out of 7,600 tested, which comes to .002 of those tested were found to test positive. The whole article was written in such a way as to lead one to false statistical conclusions. Put another way, assuming that each test cost $100, the state spent $760,000 to find 21 drug users, or $36,190 each!

Wrong, there were 21 positives out of 7600 screened. Only 89 were tested. Thus there were 21 out of 89 tested.

Read my above quoted (in blue) from YOUR source. The entire 89 sample includes ONLY people who admitted doing drugs in the last 12 months and those convicted of doing drugs in the last 3 years. I would have thought that out of that population, they would have found more like 75% positive tests.

 

[dblack]

To protect our rights, government only needs to curb behavior that violates our rights.

I never argued otherwise. I only said that government is in the behavior manipulating business. You disagreed. Now you agree.

That's a specious argument. I said the job of government is to protect our rights. You're saying it's to encourage 'desired' behavior. Those are very different things. Encouraging desired behavior is much broader, and much more invasive, than protecting our rights.

Now with respect to all my previous arguments in this thread, they are made not in a perfect world, but with the realist understanding that the society you advocate for is impossible given our current political situation. It will continue to be impossible in our lifetimes. So, I have the choice of being a strict libertarian ideologue or a conservative realist. The latter is far more practical and the former will only make me look like a moron who fails to take into account the political environmental situation in which I find myself.

What I advocate really has nothing to do with the argument you are making. But for the record, libertarians aren't fixated on any specific kind of 'libertarian' society. That's sort of the point. We're just advocating for more freedom, rather than less. That's not impossible.

You said "It's no different in my view. Government shouldn't spend its time, and our money, concocting schemes to manipulate our behavior."

I responded "What else does government do?"

Whether your a libertarian, liberal, socialist, conservative the government will always be conducting schemes to manipulate our behavior. Government is and has always been force, the only difference of opinion is how that force should be used.

Exactly. Should it be used to protect our rights, or to encourage desired behavior?

You cant do one without the other. They are one in the same. You cannot protect the rights of others without manipulating behavior through the threat of government force.

They are decidedly not one in the same. Protecting our rights entails only banning behavior that violates our rights. What you're talking about is a much broader effort to promote a specific vision of virtuous behavior. Again, that's not the kind of thing I want government monkeying with. It should protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, cooperatively and voluntarily without relying on coercion.

 

[jillian]

...just because rightwingnuts like humiliating people for being poor ...

WHY do liberals hate enforcing the law, refuse to hold anyone accountable, and like portraying those who break the law as 'victims'?

A person is caught illegally doing drugs and is receiving tax payer-funded benefits while doing so, and a 'liberal nutbag' tries to pain the guy as a 'victim' while attacking those who want to enforce the law / hold the law-breakers somehow accountable....

That's just funny as hell....and pathetic....right there. It demonstrates one of the reasons why this country has gotten so F*ed up.

you're a moron.

liberals don't like starving children.

and we'd rather feed those children than unnecessarily spend money humiliating their parents if they get high occasionally. given that your posts sound like you're constantly high, you really shouldn't worry about anyone else.

now run along, troll boy

 

[Publius1787]

Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.

Who's the math genius here?

sample

False. the 21 positives came out of only a population of people who have been doing drugs in the past:


"Social workers ask those being screened about drug use in the previous 12 months to determine whether to refer them for testing. People convicted of felony drug offenses in the three years before applying for benefits are also referred."

This means that 30 percent of druggies still can't pass a test. There were 21 positives out of 7,600 tested, which comes to .002 of those tested were found to test positive. The whole article was written in such a way as to lead one to false statistical conclusions. Put another way, assuming that each test cost $100, the state spent $760,000 to find 21 drug users, or $36,190 each!

Wrong, there were 21 positives out of 7600 screened. Only 89 were tested. Thus there were 21 out of 89 tested.

Read my above quoted (in blue) from YOUR source. The entire 89 sample includes ONLY people who admitted doing drugs in the last 12 months and those convicted of doing drugs in the last 3 years.

That's right. The 89 were the only ones tested for drugs. One 4th of them failed. I think they should have tested everyone who applied.

 

[Vandalshandle]

...just because rightwingnuts like humiliating people for being poor ...

WHY do liberals hate enforcing the law, refuse to hold anyone accountable, and like portraying those who break the law as 'victims'?

A person is caught illegally doing drugs and is receiving tax payer-funded benefits while doing so, and a 'liberal nutbag' tries to pain the guy as a 'victim' while attacking those who want to enforce the law / hold the law-breakers somehow accountable....

That's just funny as hell....and pathetic....right there. It demonstrates one of the reasons why this country has gotten so F*ed up.

...and you, on the other hand, have no problem with innocent kids going without food, because their dad does drugs...

I would venture to say that the majority of children on welfare are fatherless anyway, sooooooo . But I called your argument in another thread when I supported revoking benefits for failure to keep your legs shut while single and on welfare.

And once again, you are in favor of punishing the children for their parents sins.

 

[easyt65]

...and you, on the other hand, have no problem with innocent kids going without food, because their dad does drugs...

Again, why do you seek to respond with these emotional pleas rather than address the real problems?

You, it sounds like, would not want to kick a guy on welfare off of welfare for using illegal drugs if he has a child / children but have no problem leaving those kids in a home where the parent is on welfare and using illegal drugs.

If you are truly worried about the kids you wouldn't be as concerned with taking away the welfare as you would be with taking the children out of the home where the parents are struggling financially yet still using illegal drugs.

 

[Publius1787]

...just because rightwingnuts like humiliating people for being poor ...

WHY do liberals hate enforcing the law, refuse to hold anyone accountable, and like portraying those who break the law as 'victims'?

A person is caught illegally doing drugs and is receiving tax payer-funded benefits while doing so, and a 'liberal nutbag' tries to pain the guy as a 'victim' while attacking those who want to enforce the law / hold the law-breakers somehow accountable....

That's just funny as hell....and pathetic....right there. It demonstrates one of the reasons why this country has gotten so F*ed up.

you're a moron.

liberals don't like starving children.

and we'd rather feed those children than unnecessarily spend money humiliating their parents if they get high occasionally. given that your posts sound like you're constantly high, you really shouldn't worry about anyone else.

now run along, troll boy

Indeed, liberals need a strong base of support so they need plenty of parents on welfare giving birth to their future impoverished party members who will no doubt mimic the welfare queen who spawned them. For without victims there is no Democrat party.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.

Who's the math genius here?

sample

False. the 21 positives came out of only a population of people who have been doing drugs in the past:


"Social workers ask those being screened about drug use in the previous 12 months to determine whether to refer them for testing. People convicted of felony drug offenses in the three years before applying for benefits are also referred."

This means that 30 percent of druggies still can't pass a test. There were 21 positives out of 7,600 tested, which comes to .002 of those tested were found to test positive. The whole article was written in such a way as to lead one to false statistical conclusions. Put another way, assuming that each test cost $100, the state spent $760,000 to find 21 drug users, or $36,190 each!

Wrong, there were 21 positives out of 7600 screened. Only 89 were tested. Thus there were 21 out of 89 tested.

Read my above quoted (in blue) from YOUR source. The entire 89 sample includes ONLY people who admitted doing drugs in the last 12 months and those convicted of doing drugs in the last 3 years.

That's right. The 89 were the only ones tested for drugs. One 4th of them failed. I think they should have tested everyone who applied.

Can you read? They tested 7600 people, and 21 were found to have positive tests!

 

[Publius1787]

...just because rightwingnuts like humiliating people for being poor ...

WHY do liberals hate enforcing the law, refuse to hold anyone accountable, and like portraying those who break the law as 'victims'?

A person is caught illegally doing drugs and is receiving tax payer-funded benefits while doing so, and a 'liberal nutbag' tries to pain the guy as a 'victim' while attacking those who want to enforce the law / hold the law-breakers somehow accountable....

That's just funny as hell....and pathetic....right there. It demonstrates one of the reasons why this country has gotten so F*ed up.

...and you, on the other hand, have no problem with innocent kids going without food, because their dad does drugs...

I would venture to say that the majority of children on welfare are fatherless anyway, sooooooo . But I called your argument in another thread when I supported revoking benefits for failure to keep your legs shut while single and on welfare.

And once again, you are in favor of punishing the children for their parents sins.

A single mother goes out to murder another person. She gets caught on video camera and gets convicted. What is Vandalshandle argument to the prosecuting attorney? "you are in favor of punishing the children for their parents sins."

 

[jillian]

...just because rightwingnuts like humiliating people for being poor ...

WHY do liberals hate enforcing the law, refuse to hold anyone accountable, and like portraying those who break the law as 'victims'?

A person is caught illegally doing drugs and is receiving tax payer-funded benefits while doing so, and a 'liberal nutbag' tries to pain the guy as a 'victim' while attacking those who want to enforce the law / hold the law-breakers somehow accountable....

That's just funny as hell....and pathetic....right there. It demonstrates one of the reasons why this country has gotten so F*ed up.

you're a moron.

liberals don't like starving children.

and we'd rather feed those children than unnecessarily spend money humiliating their parents if they get high occasionally. given that your posts sound like you're constantly high, you really shouldn't worry about anyone else.

now run along, troll boy

Indeed, liberals need a strong base of support so they need plenty of parents on welfare giving birth to their future impoverished party members who will no doubt mimic the welfare queen who spawned them. For without victims there is no Democrat party.

what a bunch of nonsense.