you're right. there's no better way to advocate a violation of individual rights than the way theseus outlined. it makes sound so... so... moral to steal from one person and give to another - to force people into slavery for others - when put that way. sigh, almost a warm fuzzy just reading it.

 

there is no "balance" between liberty and equality. liberty is a function of individual rights. in order to implement equality of outcome, you must violate individual rights, and hence, deny liberty. the only way to have liberty is to implement equality of opportunity.

 

the sooner you folks drop the charade and admit that you a) do not believe in individual rights and b) do not believe in liberty for all, then i will start to give you some respect. till then, you are all nothing but hypocritical liars.

 

taks

Drama queen !

right. i'm being asked to sacrifice my liberty for someone i don't know, and i'm not happy about it, and i'm a drama queen? get real.

 

taks

you're right. there's no better way to advocate a violation of individual rights than the way theseus outlined. it makes sound so... so... moral to steal from one person and give to another - to force people into slavery for others - when put that way. sigh, almost a warm fuzzy just reading it.

 

there is no "balance" between liberty and equality. liberty is a function of individual rights. in order to implement equality of outcome, you must violate individual rights, and hence, deny liberty. the only way to have liberty is to implement equality of opportunity.

 

the sooner you folks drop the charade and admit that you a) do not believe in individual rights and b) do not believe in liberty for all, then i will start to give you some respect. till then, you are all nothing but hypocritical liars.

 

taks

Tak it seems as though you want to indulge yourself in an unlimited freedom but at the cost of lives. I dont expect you to see the color red if you are blind. A capital centered healthcare business treats people like numbers as you are. It takes an ounce of empathy to perhaps see the need for a public option. It is a moral dilemma if you want to see it that way too of course. I perhaps thought it was a natural instinct to sympathize with the unfortunate, but perhaps you lack the capacity of empathy necessary to put yourself in anothers shoes. But It is also as much a fiscal problem where in the long run we will save money. Less bankruptcies, less deaths, less cost, better living style, better care, more people covered. All this for the price of a few losing their liberty to where a few of their tax dollars (that are already being taken out) go, like they ever had a complete say.

As a reference, Hong Kong, deemed as the most free economy by the index of economic freedom for 15 years in a row has both public and private health care and public and private higher education as well.

there is no "balance" between liberty and equality.

 

Of course there's not. With Libertarianism there never is. It's always black and white.

Sadly, I can't participate in the debate, but I'm glad to see you guys are still giving each other hell. For my part, in what is truly a message board irony, about the time that I started in on the discussion here, about 2 weeks ago, my appendix burst. There's a really long and stupid story involved here, but the upshot is, they discovered my appendicitis on Wednesday and took it out in the wee hours of Wednesday night Thursday morning. Pain after the operation, incision and all, is nothing when compared to the suffering before the operation. Anyhow, I just thought I'd check in so folks could get a good laugh at my expense.

 

Aw, get better soon, hun!

The question is how much did it cost.

Of course there's not. With Libertarianism there never is. It's always black and white.

this has nothing to do with black and white issues. it is very clear that you must violate one person's liberty if he is forced to pay for another's - it is also inarguable. it only takes common sense, actually.

 

or are you trying to say that i am not actually being forced to give up anything? take your pick... should be logically easy to defend, right?

 

taks

so "liberty" has nothing to do with its actual definition anymore... liberty, and by extension, individual rights, are things that are granted by the state. that one "right" (read: privilege) may conflict with another is OK because people like you are apparently capable of making moral decisions for everyone. you "just know" what is the proper - moral - course for me.

 

taks

Edited September 24, 200916 yr by Tigranes
Removed mockery and personal jabs

taks, I have a question. How is it any more irrational or fascist to pay for someone else's helathcare than their security with the police and army?

taks, I have a question. How is it any more irrational or fascist to pay for someone else's helathcare than their security with the police and army?

The Constitution requires the federal government to secure the republic and defend the borders. It does not require (and I would make the argument does not permit) the federal government from administrating healthcare, nor compelling the citizens to participate in its largesse.

After this gets rammed down out throats, it will be interesting to see the outcome of the inevitable lawsuit on its constitutionality.

 

I think one of the things that really pisses me off about this whole racket is the fact that it does not reflect the will of the people. IMO, it should be put to a vote by the population, not a bunch of "representatives of the people" who were elected to that position having never had to explain their position on the matter to their constituents. Instead, it will be ramrodded though the system simply because the Democrats have the supermajority.

Security is for everyone's benefit, paying for someone else's healthcare in addition to your own is not.

IMO, it should be put to a vote by the population, not a bunch of "representatives of the people" who were elected to that position having never had to explain their position on the matter to their constituents.

 

Isn't that kind of the whole idea behind a Republic? (jk)

so "liberty" has nothing to do with its actual definition anymore... liberty, and by extension, individual rights, are things that are granted by the state. that one "right" (read: privilege) may conflict with another is OK because people like you are apparently capable of making moral decisions for everyone. you "just know" what is the proper - moral - course for me.

 

taks

Creating a national pool for health care is creating a safety net to not allow bankruptcy, so people do not have to worry about the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States. The leading cause of Bankruptcy in the US being Health care. Its all about the pursuit of happiness and creating a more perfect union brother.

 

Thus backing universal health care is backing Liberty, for it will help peoples individual right to the pursuit of happiness and to help them create more wealth without the problem of health care we currently have. Im thinking in the macro sense though where you are looking in the micro sense. i understand where your coming from, i just disagree. Thats why we have the vote.

My english failed me so did taks say that he thinks that liberties and rights are defined/provided by the state or the opposite?

I get the feeling that Americans often confuse solidarity with a form of communism.

Edited September 25, 200916 yr by Morgoth

Everyone deserves to get a minimum of healthcare. I cannot understand those countries that have thousands of people suffering because they cannot afford to see a doctor. This is just... inhumane...

 

Then again, there should be limits as to what one can get. I have lived for a long time in France and they were at the other extreme: universal healthcare, people abusing the system, the state being almost bankrupt, high tax to provide funds to all of this... No, that is plain wrong. Look at the scandinavian countries: they have found the just middle.

Edited September 25, 200916 yr by ramza

Everyone deserves to get a minimum of healthcare.

 

 

Are you out of your mind? In what case do they "deserve" this, simply for being born here? Where do you draw the line? Does everyone deserve a full stomach? A roof over their heads? All of these are at least as important, if not moreso, than healthcare. Maybe they should get free transportation too or, god forbid, they will die in the streets from being unable to make it to the free healthcare? Screw accountability. Screw self sufficiency. Gimmie gimmie gimmie, I DESERVE IT! ITS MY RIGHT!

 

I get the feeling that Europeans often confuse a nanny state paid for by the blood, sweat and tears of the countrymen as an inalienable right.

I think in a developed civilization we can afford it to help each other out a bit.

So if I PM you my Paypal info you will cover my mortgage for me? Ive been working for 21 years and I still have 26 left to go. Im tired of that and dont feel like doing it anymore, cool with you? No? Why not? Id argue thats more important than healthcare. After all, I need a house every day but I only need healthcare very infrequently. Oh, any Im going to need you to hook a brother up with free meals too. For my entire family. Its the only civilized thing to do after all.

I get the feeling that Europeans often confuse a nanny state paid for by the blood, sweat and tears of the countrymen as an inalienable right.

What I don't get is, why are you allowing us to influence on how you do stuff in your country? Especially seeing as how we can't seem to find our way out of a wet paper bag on our own. Why would you want to follow an European's advice on anything?!

Er, I dont.

Does everyone deserve a full stomach? A roof over their heads?

Yes. Yes they do.

 

Maybe they should get free transportation too

No, but one is not the same as the other.