thats like saying, why do people get food stamps and not everyone else. Your arguement isnt really valid here.
Well that is another system that is unfair, and my arguement is very valid. If we are all citizens then we should all get or not get something equally, having some people get something for free and others have to pay for it makes us inherently unequal in the eyes of the law.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Umm why wouldn't we have the best system in the world? Because we just don't hand it out to everyone? I have great healthcare and guess what.....I pay for it. Now I dont think that it would not be a bad idea to set a income level then say ok everyone above pay for it and eveyrone below you get help. We have the best doctors because they have a reason to be the best of their area. Otherwise the gov't tells you what paitens you get and how much you will be paid for it.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Umm why wouldn't we have the best system in the world? Because we just don't hand it out to everyone? I have great healthcare and guess what.....I pay for it. Now I dont think that it would not be a bad idea to set a income level then say ok everyone above pay for it and eveyrone below you get help. We have the best doctors because they have a reason to be the best of their area. Otherwise the gov't tells you what paitens you get and how much you will be paid for it.
hey, we can also tell people how to diet. patients can run the risk of out of pocket garnishment if say, they kept eating foods that we, the powerful government deemed inapporpriate for you.
is this approval of systemic universal liberal healthcare from the same crowd as, the big bad government wants to wiretap your phones! bush illegal wiretapping. waah.
privacy advocates, eh?
but there is a difference!!
bullshit.
do away with cars, build the moving freeway, that will drive us to the factory.
Most Americans probably want free beer and groceries, especially if they can get it with someone else's money. Fortunately, we are still a Republic, not a Democracy. As someone smart once said (sometimes attributed to de Toqueville, sometimes Tytler, both seem to be incorrect): "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
Odd since we'd be paying less as a country for better service if we had healthcare like most of Europe.
I guess mere FACTS are not enough to trump your pithy sayings.
Ah, once again, the childish personal attacks from the left ("pithy sayings"). At any rate if you are so sure of the facts, please present some.
Actually no. Childish personal attacks would be if I called your statements retarded. I decided to label them pithy, which was actually a compliment, especially compared to other adjectives I might have used for them.
But hey, I obviously was winning this debate, so I had to trigger one of your default Freeper bot losing a debate modes. Spam random links, babble out free market economic gibbrish, claim I hate America, or take the moral high ground. But here, learn some real facts: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-28-voa59.cfm As far as I've seen the facts, all socialized medicine is a failure, including ours. In Europe, the more market-based ones are better than the socialist ones, and those are even in some ways more market-based than ours. So despite spending the most money, we don't even rank in the top 30 in healthcare systems. France pays for all long term care, and 70% of the costs on anything that isn't 100% covered. They spend $3,300 per person (the US spends $6,500). They have the best healthcare in the world. Israel has a public, compulsory healthcare system. It costs them $1,530 per capita, and ranked 28 to our 37. We manage to spend more than FOUR TIMES what Israel does, and we can't even manage to beat them. Their system is as socialist as its possible to get. www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-28-voa59.cfm
Please, show me how much healthcare each country spends as a per capita and in what ways they get better service as well for that less money. This is so well documented its beyond funny.
Oh dear, despite having lower than some and comperable to most, we are spending TWO TO FOUR TIMES AS MUCH. And what are we getting? No appreciable improvement on any service, thought Cato has dug up some anecdotes that help their cause. "Well there's been some reports of wait times in Germany. But in America, there's none of those, the poor people don't even go to the doctor "
I guess its true we have the highest cancer survival rates by anywhere from a percentage point or two to much larger. Of course we have worse Heart Disease mortality rates. But hey, I'm sure if they are willing to sit there and monkey through enough statistics, we'll come out smelling like daisies eventually, even if they have to throw a dozen studies on the floor. After all, we're spending twice what they are, we're probably getting SOMETHING for it, even if most of that money is wasted.
So sure, sit there and be sure that we have the best of the best of the best and it can't possibly be improved (except perhaps through MOAR FREE MARCATS!!11!!!11). After all its your opinion. You have the right to base it on bad information, logical fallacies, and utter nonsense, as any church will happily tell you.
Just don't ask me to take that opinion seriously.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Umm why wouldn't we have the best system in the world? Because we just don't hand it out to everyone? I have great healthcare and guess what.....I pay for it. Now I dont think that it would not be a bad idea to set a income level then say ok everyone above pay for it and eveyrone below you get help. We have the best doctors because they have a reason to be the best of their area. Otherwise the gov't tells you what paitens you get and how much you will be paid for it.
hey, we can also tell people how to diet. patients can run the risk of out of pocket garnishment if say, they kept eating foods that we, the powerful government deemed inapporpriate for you.
is this approval of systemic universal liberal healthcare from the same crowd as, the big bad government wants to wiretap your phones! bush illegal wiretapping. waah.
privacy advocates, eh?
but there is a difference!!
bullshit.
do away with cars, build the moving freeway, that will drive us to the factory.
I was thinking the exact same thing. It could go well beyound what you wrote too. Maybe outlaw risky behaviors....skiing, skydiving, trampolines, swimming pools, dangerous pets like pitbulls, cell phones, and so on. If you read Europeon news you see all kinds of stuff like this. Guns will definately be on the chopping block. The sky is the limit baby! Stuff you can't even think of will be controled. I never even heard of trans fat until NY says it kills you. Harry Reed says coal make you sick too.
Although, if we have free healthcare, I will be first in line getting all I can as often as I can and wooping it up with the rest of ya all. I have some ailments that I have put off since I have had to pay but when it is free, yeehaw.
Most Americans probably want free beer and groceries, especially if they can get it with someone else's money. Fortunately, we are still a Republic, not a Democracy. As someone smart once said (sometimes attributed to de Toqueville, sometimes Tytler, both seem to be incorrect): "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
Odd since we'd be paying less as a country for better service if we had healthcare like most of Europe.
I guess mere FACTS are not enough to trump your pithy sayings.
Ah, once again, the childish personal attacks from the left ("pithy sayings"). At any rate if you are so sure of the facts, please present some.
Actually no. Childish personal attacks would be if I called your statements retarded. I decided to label them pithy, which was actually a compliment, especially compared to other adjectives I might have used for them.
But hey, I obviously was winning this debate, so I had to trigger one of your default Freeper bot losing a debate modes. Spam random links, babble out free market economic gibbrish, claim I hate America, or take the moral high ground. But here, learn some real facts: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-28-voa59.cfm As far as I've seen the facts, all socialized medicine is a failure, including ours. In Europe, the more market-based ones are better than the socialist ones, and those are even in some ways more market-based than ours. So despite spending the most money, we don't even rank in the top 30 in healthcare systems. France pays for all long term care, and 70% of the costs on anything that isn't 100% covered. They spend $3,300 per person (the US spends $6,500). They have the best healthcare in the world. Israel has a public, compulsory healthcare system. It costs them $1,530 per capita, and ranked 28 to our 37. We manage to spend more than FOUR TIMES what Israel does, and we can't even manage to beat them. Their system is as socialist as its possible to get. www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-28-voa59.cfm
Please, show me how much healthcare each country spends as a per capita and in what ways they get better service as well for that less money. This is so well documented its beyond funny.
Oh dear, despite having lower than some and comperable to most, we are spending TWO TO FOUR TIMES AS MUCH. And what are we getting? No appreciable improvement on any service, thought Cato has dug up some anecdotes that help their cause. "Well there's been some reports of wait times in Germany. But in America, there's none of those, the poor people don't even go to the doctor "
I guess its true we have the highest cancer survival rates by anywhere from a percentage point or two to much larger. Of course we have worse Heart Disease mortality rates. But hey, I'm sure if they are willing to sit there and monkey through enough statistics, we'll come out smelling like daisies eventually, even if they have to throw a dozen studies on the floor. After all, we're spending twice what they are, we're probably getting SOMETHING for it, even if most of that money is wasted.
So sure, sit there and be sure that we have the best of the best of the best and it can't possibly be improved (except perhaps through MOAR FREE MARCATS!!11!!!11). After all its your opinion. You have the right to base it on bad information, logical fallacies, and utter nonsense, as any church will happily tell you.
Just don't ask me to take that opinion seriously.
Okay so you use left wing trained ponies. I'll stick with people who believe in freedom.
How about instead of launching more personal attacks you actually provide real data
Plus the Cato institute is far from right wing. Libertarians are not conservatives. We are beyond your left wing/right wing false dichotomy. Way to launch FURTHER personal attacks. More and more I simply see people of the left simply do not know how to have a polite discussion anymore. My how shrill you've become.
namecalling, argument to ridicule, the list of shabby tactics never ends.
READ the report and PROVE it's wrong; or find a reasonable critique and share it.
You know, the only reason people are looking upon some government financed method of providing health care is because the current system of supporting a large parasitical insurance industry is not providing the health care people need.
Portability of health care financing is a huge issue with many Americans. The current system is very expensive, but doesn't provide care for millions.
This is an issue of freedom for those who seek health care, because their freedom is severely restricted by the current non-functional system, which is about profit of insurance companies, not about health care for Americans.
I don't want a government run health care system. I've served in uniform, I've been un a government run system. Through the VA, I'm in a government run system. It's not the optimal way to provide health care.
But a single payer system is vastly superior to the current for profit fractured system we have now. It will be less expensive per capita under the current system.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
You know, the only reason people are looking upon some government financed method of providing health care is because the current system of supporting a large parasitical insurance industry is not providing the health care people need. Portability of health care financing is a huge issue with many Americans. The current system is very expensive, but doesn't provide care for millions. This is an issue of freedom for those who seek health care, because their freedom is severely restricted by the current non-functional system, which is about profit of insurance companies, not about health care for Americans. I don't want a government run health care system. I've served in uniform, I've been un a government run system. Through the VA, I'm in a government run system. It's not the optimal way to provide health care. But a single payer system is vastly superior to the current for profit fractured system we have now. It will be less expensive per capita under the current system.
Actually, it seems all the single payer systems are rapidly becoming a larger and larger portions of those countries' budgets, and like all socialist systems will eventually collapse of its own weight. You either need government dictatorial rationing or market discipline.
The fact is OUR costs are rising here due to the government racket already screwing things up -- if we actually went to a more market oriented system, we'd be better off.
A single payer system IS government run health care, in the long run.
Why not have a single payer grocery system. Wouldn't that be vastly superior and less expensive? Of course not. What we need essentially is to open up markets for medicine in the same way -- allowing retail health care.
It's already happening where government isn't stopping it.
Plus, we can argue the utilitarian arguments all day -- people tend to only believe the sources that support them, so there's no convincing. each considers their own subjective things as "facts."
What about the moral argument? By what right does one citizen point a gun to the head of another citizen and force that citizen to pay for his health care? Everything we do by government is something that we do by force. Why is it moral or ethical to force one group of people to pay for another groups' care?
How about instead of launching more personal attacks you actually provide real data
Plus the Cato institute is far from right wing. Libertarians are not conservatives. We are beyond your left wing/right wing false dichotomy. Way to launch FURTHER personal attacks. More and more I simply see people of the left simply do not know how to have a polite discussion anymore. My how shrill you've become. namecalling, argument to ridicule, the list of shabby tactics never ends. READ the report and PROVE it's wrong; or find a reasonable critique and share it.
You didn't read a word I posted.
That's okay, I guess your crazy philosophy insulates you from reality. And that, my friend, is a personal attack. It's okay, by blatantly ignoring the facts and figures and data I posted, you earned it. Don't worry, I'm sure the free market will save us all, it's like Jesus.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Socialized health care is obviously the way to go.
#1: it is less expensive per capita
#2: it provides coverage for everyone, allowing for a healthier society
#3 it fulfills constitutional principles of caring for the "general welfare of society'
#4: it is more equitable to a society that, as part of the social contract, mandates equal opportunity for everyone
Pretty simple if you think of it that way.
Black and white arguments against health care usually result in using false analogies for systems that simply work better when market forces are involved. Unfortunately most advocates of these free markets don't realize is that you need a social support system to bring those markets into fruition. The essentials: education, health care, shelter, food, protection.
Almost every (edit: developed!) nation provides these as essentials of living and participating in society. America does this too...minus one...health care. Pretty archaic if you ask me. I've seen examples of social systems that definitely play by free market principles without such social safety nets: pay for your police, your fire fighters, your primary education, and no welfare system minus religious charity. They don't do so hot.
Libertarian ideals fail in the real world. SOCIAL contracts, properly implemented with rigorously enforced constitutions, are where its at.
How about instead of launching more personal attacks you actually provide real data
Plus the Cato institute is far from right wing. Libertarians are not conservatives. We are beyond your left wing/right wing false dichotomy. Way to launch FURTHER personal attacks. More and more I simply see people of the left simply do not know how to have a polite discussion anymore. My how shrill you've become. namecalling, argument to ridicule, the list of shabby tactics never ends. READ the report and PROVE it's wrong; or find a reasonable critique and share it.
You didn't read a word I posted.
That's okay, I guess your crazy philosophy insulates you from reality. And that, my friend, is a personal attack. It's okay, by blatantly ignoring the facts and figures and data I posted, you earned it. Don't worry, I'm sure the free market will save us all, it's like Jesus.
I read every word posted, and like THIS post, it was more personal attacks and namecalling. Once again it seems your side of this simply doesn't know how decent people discuss things.
Socialized health care is obviously the way to go. #1: it is less expensive per capita #2: it provides coverage for everyone, allowing for a healthier society #3 it fulfills constitutional principles of caring for the "general welfare of society' #4: it is more equitable to a society that, as part of the social contract, mandates equal opportunity for everyone Pretty simple if you think of it that way. Black and white arguments against health care usually result in using false analogies for systems that simply work better when market forces are involved. Unfortunately most advocates of these free markets don't realize is that you need a social support system to bring those markets into fruition. The essentials: education, health care, shelter, food, protection. Almost every (edit: developed!) nation provides these as essentials of living and participating in society. America does this too...minus one...health care. Pretty archaic if you ask me. I've seen examples of social systems that definitely play by free market principles without such social safety nets: pay for your police, your fire fighters, your primary education, and no welfare system minus religious charity. They don't do so hot. Libertarian ideals fail in the real world. SOCIAL contracts, properly implemented with rigorously enforced constitutions, are where its at.
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Socialized health care is obviously the way to go. #1: it is less expensive per capita #2: it provides coverage for everyone, allowing for a healthier society #3 it fulfills constitutional principles of caring for the "general welfare of society' #4: it is more equitable to a society that, as part of the social contract, mandates equal opportunity for everyone Pretty simple if you think of it that way. Black and white arguments against health care usually result in using false analogies for systems that simply work better when market forces are involved. Unfortunately most advocates of these free markets don't realize is that you need a social support system to bring those markets into fruition. The essentials: education, health care, shelter, food, protection. Almost every (edit: developed!) nation provides these as essentials of living and participating in society. America does this too...minus one...health care. Pretty archaic if you ask me. I've seen examples of social systems that definitely play by free market principles without such social safety nets: pay for your police, your fire fighters, your primary education, and no welfare system minus religious charity. They don't do so hot. Libertarian ideals fail in the real world. SOCIAL contracts, properly implemented with rigorously enforced constitutions, are where its at.
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Socialized health care is obviously the way to go. #1: it is less expensive per capita #2: it provides coverage for everyone, allowing for a healthier society #3 it fulfills constitutional principles of caring for the "general welfare of society' #4: it is more equitable to a society that, as part of the social contract, mandates equal opportunity for everyone Pretty simple if you think of it that way. Black and white arguments against health care usually result in using false analogies for systems that simply work better when market forces are involved. Unfortunately most advocates of these free markets don't realize is that you need a social support system to bring those markets into fruition. The essentials: education, health care, shelter, food, protection. Almost every (edit: developed!) nation provides these as essentials of living and participating in society. America does this too...minus one...health care. Pretty archaic if you ask me. I've seen examples of social systems that definitely play by free market principles without such social safety nets: pay for your police, your fire fighters, your primary education, and no welfare system minus religious charity. They don't do so hot. Libertarian ideals fail in the real world. SOCIAL contracts, properly implemented with rigorously enforced constitutions, are where its at.
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
Every use of goverment to any end is the use of force to that end.
Socialized health care is obviously the way to go. #1: it is less expensive per capita #2: it provides coverage for everyone, allowing for a healthier society #3 it fulfills constitutional principles of caring for the "general welfare of society' #4: it is more equitable to a society that, as part of the social contract, mandates equal opportunity for everyone Pretty simple if you think of it that way. Black and white arguments against health care usually result in using false analogies for systems that simply work better when market forces are involved. Unfortunately most advocates of these free markets don't realize is that you need a social support system to bring those markets into fruition. The essentials: education, health care, shelter, food, protection. Almost every (edit: developed!) nation provides these as essentials of living and participating in society. America does this too...minus one...health care. Pretty archaic if you ask me. I've seen examples of social systems that definitely play by free market principles without such social safety nets: pay for your police, your fire fighters, your primary education, and no welfare system minus religious charity. They don't do so hot. Libertarian ideals fail in the real world. SOCIAL contracts, properly implemented with rigorously enforced constitutions, are where its at.
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
Every use of goverment to any end is the use of force to that end.
Socialized health care is obviously the way to go. #1: it is less expensive per capita #2: it provides coverage for everyone, allowing for a healthier society #3 it fulfills constitutional principles of caring for the "general welfare of society' #4: it is more equitable to a society that, as part of the social contract, mandates equal opportunity for everyone Pretty simple if you think of it that way. Black and white arguments against health care usually result in using false analogies for systems that simply work better when market forces are involved. Unfortunately most advocates of these free markets don't realize is that you need a social support system to bring those markets into fruition. The essentials: education, health care, shelter, food, protection. Almost every (edit: developed!) nation provides these as essentials of living and participating in society. America does this too...minus one...health care. Pretty archaic if you ask me. I've seen examples of social systems that definitely play by free market principles without such social safety nets: pay for your police, your fire fighters, your primary education, and no welfare system minus religious charity. They don't do so hot. Libertarian ideals fail in the real world. SOCIAL contracts, properly implemented with rigorously enforced constitutions, are where its at.
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
Every use of goverment to any end is the use of force to that end.
Oh brother. Srsly?
That is what government IS. Government are those things that we are willing to force people to do. Laws are instruments of force. Government programs are instruments of force. It's quite simply what they ARE by definition.
Play the childish argument to ridicule game all you want, you obviously don't know what government is by its very nature. I would say that disqualifies you from conversation on this matter.
I don't know about the rest of you sheep, but I'm about sick of paying other people to live.
If you can't afford health care, then you need to get a better job.
You can't afford to put food on the table? Get a better job.
I'm really tired of my hard earned money going to support the people that choose not to work. I'm sick of people having more kids than they can afford and then I get to split the bill. I'm sick of illegal immigrants getting free college when I had to pay every dollor of my education.
Do away with food stamps.
Do away with Medicaid/Medicare.
Know what happens when you go to the hospital/doctor when you don’t have health insurance? They send you a bill. They do not charge interest. Pay the bastards $10 bucks a month for the next 10 years and you’ll have that paid off. Don’t make me pay the bill with my tax dollars!
Here is a short story for you:
My wife's sister has 4 kids. She lives in these apartments. The government actually PAYS her to live there. Instead of paying rent like the rest of us she gets ~$10.00 a month to live where she is.
Why do soooo many people feel the need to have the government hold their hand cradle to grave?!?!
Socialized health care is obviously the way to go. #1: it is less expensive per capita #2: it provides coverage for everyone, allowing for a healthier society #3 it fulfills constitutional principles of caring for the "general welfare of society' #4: it is more equitable to a society that, as part of the social contract, mandates equal opportunity for everyone Pretty simple if you think of it that way. Black and white arguments against health care usually result in using false analogies for systems that simply work better when market forces are involved. Unfortunately most advocates of these free markets don't realize is that you need a social support system to bring those markets into fruition. The essentials: education, health care, shelter, food, protection. Almost every (edit: developed!) nation provides these as essentials of living and participating in society. America does this too...minus one...health care. Pretty archaic if you ask me. I've seen examples of social systems that definitely play by free market principles without such social safety nets: pay for your police, your fire fighters, your primary education, and no welfare system minus religious charity. They don't do so hot. Libertarian ideals fail in the real world. SOCIAL contracts, properly implemented with rigorously enforced constitutions, are where its at.
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
Every use of goverment to any end is the use of force to that end.
Oh brother. Srsly?
That is what government IS. Government are those things that we are willing to force people to do. Laws are instruments of force. Government programs are instruments of force. It's quite simply what they ARE by definition.
Play the childish argument to ridicule game all you want, you obviously don't know what government is by its very nature. I would say that disqualifies you from conversation on this matter.
You can paint the picture anyway you want and advocate that "force is bad" and therefore "government is bad" but you fail in providing a pragmatic (or even idealistic) alternative.
Sure principled "force" (using your wide-arced definition) is used to enforce a social contract. It sure beats the alternative of arbitrary force in an anarchistic environment. But liberty in any practical sense is enforced through liberal democracies that protect positive liberties through social contracts. Or, as a libertarian, forgotten your "Treatise of Government" lectures in phil. class?
Philosophy was fun when I was 20. I prefer the real world now and real world solutions and not blanket criticisms of law and government. Reality check please.
Socialized health care is obviously the way to go. #1: it is less expensive per capita #2: it provides coverage for everyone, allowing for a healthier society #3 it fulfills constitutional principles of caring for the "general welfare of society' #4: it is more equitable to a society that, as part of the social contract, mandates equal opportunity for everyone Pretty simple if you think of it that way. Black and white arguments against health care usually result in using false analogies for systems that simply work better when market forces are involved. Unfortunately most advocates of these free markets don't realize is that you need a social support system to bring those markets into fruition. The essentials: education, health care, shelter, food, protection. Almost every (edit: developed!) nation provides these as essentials of living and participating in society. America does this too...minus one...health care. Pretty archaic if you ask me. I've seen examples of social systems that definitely play by free market principles without such social safety nets: pay for your police, your fire fighters, your primary education, and no welfare system minus religious charity. They don't do so hot. Libertarian ideals fail in the real world. SOCIAL contracts, properly implemented with rigorously enforced constitutions, are where its at.
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
Every use of goverment to any end is the use of force to that end.
Oh brother. Srsly?
That is what government IS. Government are those things that we are willing to force people to do. Laws are instruments of force. Government programs are instruments of force. It's quite simply what they ARE by definition.
Play the childish argument to ridicule game all you want, you obviously don't know what government is by its very nature. I would say that disqualifies you from conversation on this matter.
You can paint the picture anyway you want and advocate that "force is bad" and therefore "government is bad" but you fail in providing a pragmatic (or even idealistic) alternative.
Sure principled "force" (using your wide-arced definition) is used to enforce a social contract. It sure beats the alternative of arbitrary force in an anarchistic environment. But liberty in any practical sense is enforced through liberal democracies that protect positive liberties through social contracts. Or, as a libertarian, forgotten your "Treatise of Government" lectures in phil. class?
Philosophy was fun when I was 20. I prefer the real world now and real world solutions and not blanket criticisms of law and government. Reality check please.
I didn't say "force is bad" I merely said that GOVERNMENT is force by its very nature, and therefore we should be VERY careful how we limit that force when applied to our neighbors. I feel it is wrong to put a gun to your neighbor's head and take your health care form him.
I don't know about the rest of you sheep, but I'm about sick of paying other people to live. If you can't afford health care, then you need to get a better job. You can't afford to put food on the table? Get a better job. I'm really tired of my hard earned money going to support the people that choose not to work. I'm sick of people having more kids than they can afford and then I get to split the bill. I'm sick of illegal immigrants getting free college when I had to pay every dollor of my education. Do away with food stamps. Do away with Medicaid/Medicare. Know what happens when you go to the hospital/doctor when you don’t have health insurance? They send you a bill. They do not charge interest. Pay the bastards $10 bucks a month for the next 10 years and you’ll have that paid off. Don’t make me pay the bill with my tax dollars! Here is a short story for you:
My wife's sister has 4 kids. She lives in these apartments. The government actually PAYS her to live there. Instead of paying rent like the rest of us she gets ~$10.00 a month to live where she is.
Why do soooo many people feel the need to have the government hold their hand cradle to grave?!?! RON PAUL 2012!!!
Heck, I agree with you. Why allow children to go to school for free? Im sick of paying for ungrateful children. That way 15 years down the road I can hire them at $1 an hou...wait what? Minimum wage? Why should the government tell me what I can pay my employees? How dare they! I'm going to drive down to the legislature and compla...what...a new road? What is this? Why am i paying for this so other people can use it? Everyone should get a pass for every road they have helped pay for or there should be a toll with a swipe card...enough of these freeloading drivers.
Moral of the story: Social welfare provides the structure society needs to be maintained and to keep it from collapsing. If you enable people who have money from the outset you eventually truncate a huge portion of your population who will eventually resent your education and wealth...and then your country turns into a constant police state. If you like this type of free enterprise system so much where basic necessities are not provided for? Move to Brazil or Argentina or something. Plenty of laissez-faire there.
I don't know about the rest of you sheep, but I'm about sick of paying other people to live. If you can't afford health care, then you need to get a better job. You can't afford to put food on the table? Get a better job. I'm really tired of my hard earned money going to support the people that choose not to work. I'm sick of people having more kids than they can afford and then I get to split the bill. I'm sick of illegal immigrants getting free college when I had to pay every dollor of my education. Do away with food stamps. Do away with Medicaid/Medicare. Know what happens when you go to the hospital/doctor when you don’t have health insurance? They send you a bill. They do not charge interest. Pay the bastards $10 bucks a month for the next 10 years and you’ll have that paid off. Don’t make me pay the bill with my tax dollars! Here is a short story for you:
My wife's sister has 4 kids. She lives in these apartments. The government actually PAYS her to live there. Instead of paying rent like the rest of us she gets ~$10.00 a month to live where she is.
Why do soooo many people feel the need to have the government hold their hand cradle to grave?!?! RON PAUL 2012!!!
Heck, I agree with you. Why allow children to go to school for free? Im sick of paying for ungrateful children. That way 15 years down the road I can hire them at $1 an hou...wait what? Minimum wage? Why should the government tell me what I can pay my employees? How dare they! I'm going to drive down to the legislature and compla...what...a new road? What is this? Why am i paying for this so other people can use it? Everyone should get a pass for every road they have helped pay for or there should be a toll with a swipe card...enough of these freeloading drivers.
Moral of the story: Social welfare provides the structure society needs to be maintained and to keep it from collapsing. If you enable people who have money from the outset you eventually truncate a huge portion of your population who will eventually resent your education and wealth...and then your country turns into a constant police state. If you like this type of free enterprise system so much where basic necessities are not provided for? Move to Brazil or Argentina or something. Plenty of laissez-faire there.
Once again, argument to ridicule. Thank you for showing you can't argue politely.
How about we stick to the topic? we can discuss other uses for government force in another thread. Why is it right and proper to use force to take the money from one person to pay for the health care of another.
If you really care so much about people who don't have health care, why aren;t you helping them? why are you instead advocating using force to take from one group and give to another? If you care, help people outright, don't force.
If YOU are right, everyone should be willing to help one another. If you need to force people, what makes you so sure you are right?
Socialized health care is obviously the way to go. #1: it is less expensive per capita #2: it provides coverage for everyone, allowing for a healthier society #3 it fulfills constitutional principles of caring for the "general welfare of society' #4: it is more equitable to a society that, as part of the social contract, mandates equal opportunity for everyone Pretty simple if you think of it that way. Black and white arguments against health care usually result in using false analogies for systems that simply work better when market forces are involved. Unfortunately most advocates of these free markets don't realize is that you need a social support system to bring those markets into fruition. The essentials: education, health care, shelter, food, protection. Almost every (edit: developed!) nation provides these as essentials of living and participating in society. America does this too...minus one...health care. Pretty archaic if you ask me. I've seen examples of social systems that definitely play by free market principles without such social safety nets: pay for your police, your fire fighters, your primary education, and no welfare system minus religious charity. They don't do so hot. Libertarian ideals fail in the real world. SOCIAL contracts, properly implemented with rigorously enforced constitutions, are where its at.
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
Every use of goverment to any end is the use of force to that end.
Oh brother. Srsly?
That is what government IS. Government are those things that we are willing to force people to do. Laws are instruments of force. Government programs are instruments of force. It's quite simply what they ARE by definition.
Play the childish argument to ridicule game all you want, you obviously don't know what government is by its very nature. I would say that disqualifies you from conversation on this matter.
You can paint the picture anyway you want and advocate that "force is bad" and therefore "government is bad" but you fail in providing a pragmatic (or even idealistic) alternative.
Sure principled "force" (using your wide-arced definition) is used to enforce a social contract. It sure beats the alternative of arbitrary force in an anarchistic environment. But liberty in any practical sense is enforced through liberal democracies that protect positive liberties through social contracts. Or, as a libertarian, forgotten your "Treatise of Government" lectures in phil. class?
Philosophy was fun when I was 20. I prefer the real world now and real world solutions and not blanket criticisms of law and government. Reality check please.
I didn't say "force is bad" I merely said that GOVERNMENT is force by its very nature, and therefore we should be VERY careful how we limit that force when applied to our neighbors. I feel it is wrong to put a gun to your neighbor's head and take your health care form him.
You don't.
I agree you have to be careful. Any force or enforcement of the social contract should be:
1. Non-arbitrary: rule of law, constitutions
2. Adaptable: functional tools and systems for change
3. Accountable: independent branches of government, remedies as strong as the rules
These things protect the population from their government. You won't always like the balance or the compromises made...but such is life.
Comments
Well that is another system that is unfair, and my arguement is very valid. If we are all citizens then we should all get or not get something equally, having some people get something for free and others have to pay for it makes us inherently unequal in the eyes of the law.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Umm why wouldn't we have the best system in the world? Because we just don't hand it out to everyone? I have great healthcare and guess what.....I pay for it. Now I dont think that it would not be a bad idea to set a income level then say ok everyone above pay for it and eveyrone below you get help. We have the best doctors because they have a reason to be the best of their area. Otherwise the gov't tells you what paitens you get and how much you will be paid for it.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
hey, we can also tell people how to diet. patients can run the risk of out of pocket garnishment if say, they kept eating foods that we, the powerful government deemed inapporpriate for you.
is this approval of systemic universal liberal healthcare from the same crowd as, the big bad government wants to wiretap your phones! bush illegal wiretapping. waah.
privacy advocates, eh?
but there is a difference!!
bullshit.
do away with cars, build the moving freeway, that will drive us to the factory.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
Odd since we'd be paying less as a country for better service if we had healthcare like most of Europe.
I guess mere FACTS are not enough to trump your pithy sayings.
Ah, once again, the childish personal attacks from the left ("pithy sayings"). At any rate if you are so sure of the facts, please present some.
Actually no. Childish personal attacks would be if I called your statements retarded. I decided to label them pithy, which was actually a compliment, especially compared to other adjectives I might have used for them.
But hey, I obviously was winning this debate, so I had to trigger one of your default Freeper bot losing a debate modes. Spam random links, babble out free market economic gibbrish, claim I hate America, or take the moral high ground.As far as I've seen the facts, all socialized medicine is a failure, including ours. In Europe, the more market-based ones are better than the socialist ones, and those are even in some ways more market-based than ours.
So despite spending the most money, we don't even rank in the top 30 in healthcare systems. France pays for all long term care, and 70% of the costs on anything that isn't 100% covered. They spend $3,300 per person (the US spends $6,500). They have the best healthcare in the world. Israel has a public, compulsory healthcare system. It costs them $1,530 per capita, and ranked 28 to our 37. We manage to spend more than FOUR TIMES what Israel does, and we can't even manage to beat them. Their system is as socialist as its possible to get. www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-28-voa59.cfm
Please, show me how much healthcare each country spends as a per capita and in what ways they get better service as well for that less money.
This is so well documented its beyond funny.
EDIT: Here's a few facts for ya; let's see what you've got that's better.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272
The Cato institute? The right wing's trained ponies, who spit out papers on command? You actually believe a word they write?
They're spinning and lying by page 3!
Health care spending is not necessarily bad.
To a large degree, America spends money on
health care because it is a wealthy nation and
chooses to do so. Economists consider health
care a "normal good," meaning that spending
is positively correlated with income. As
incomes rise, people want more of that good.
Because we are a wealthy nation, we can and
do demand more health care.
Would it be considered rude to mention that we have a lower per capita income than many of these European countries?
http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm
Oh dear, despite having lower than some and comperable to most, we are spending TWO TO FOUR TIMES AS MUCH. And what are we getting? No appreciable improvement on any service, thought Cato has dug up some anecdotes that help their cause. "Well there's been some reports of wait times in Germany. But in America, there's none of those, the poor people don't even go to the doctor
"
I guess its true we have the highest cancer survival rates by anywhere from a percentage point or two to much larger. Of course we have worse Heart Disease mortality rates. But hey, I'm sure if they are willing to sit there and monkey through enough statistics, we'll come out smelling like daisies eventually, even if they have to throw a dozen studies on the floor. After all, we're spending twice what they are, we're probably getting SOMETHING for it, even if most of that money is wasted.
So sure, sit there and be sure that we have the best of the best of the best and it can't possibly be improved (except perhaps through MOAR FREE MARCATS!!11!!!11). After all its your opinion. You have the right to base it on bad information, logical fallacies, and utter nonsense, as any church will happily tell you.
Just don't ask me to take that opinion seriously.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
hey, we can also tell people how to diet. patients can run the risk of out of pocket garnishment if say, they kept eating foods that we, the powerful government deemed inapporpriate for you.
is this approval of systemic universal liberal healthcare from the same crowd as, the big bad government wants to wiretap your phones! bush illegal wiretapping. waah.
privacy advocates, eh?
but there is a difference!!
bullshit.
do away with cars, build the moving freeway, that will drive us to the factory.
I was thinking the exact same thing. It could go well beyound what you wrote too. Maybe outlaw risky behaviors....skiing, skydiving, trampolines, swimming pools, dangerous pets like pitbulls, cell phones, and so on. If you read Europeon news you see all kinds of stuff like this. Guns will definately be on the chopping block. The sky is the limit baby! Stuff you can't even think of will be controled. I never even heard of trans fat until NY says it kills you. Harry Reed says coal make you sick too.
Although, if we have free healthcare, I will be first in line getting all I can as often as I can and wooping it up with the rest of ya all. I have some ailments that I have put off since I have had to pay but when it is free, yeehaw.
Odd since we'd be paying less as a country for better service if we had healthcare like most of Europe.
I guess mere FACTS are not enough to trump your pithy sayings.
Ah, once again, the childish personal attacks from the left ("pithy sayings"). At any rate if you are so sure of the facts, please present some.
Actually no. Childish personal attacks would be if I called your statements retarded. I decided to label them pithy, which was actually a compliment, especially compared to other adjectives I might have used for them.
But hey, I obviously was winning this debate, so I had to trigger one of your default Freeper bot losing a debate modes. Spam random links, babble out free market economic gibbrish, claim I hate America, or take the moral high ground.As far as I've seen the facts, all socialized medicine is a failure, including ours. In Europe, the more market-based ones are better than the socialist ones, and those are even in some ways more market-based than ours.
So despite spending the most money, we don't even rank in the top 30 in healthcare systems. France pays for all long term care, and 70% of the costs on anything that isn't 100% covered. They spend $3,300 per person (the US spends $6,500). They have the best healthcare in the world. Israel has a public, compulsory healthcare system. It costs them $1,530 per capita, and ranked 28 to our 37. We manage to spend more than FOUR TIMES what Israel does, and we can't even manage to beat them. Their system is as socialist as its possible to get. www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-28-voa59.cfm
Please, show me how much healthcare each country spends as a per capita and in what ways they get better service as well for that less money.
This is so well documented its beyond funny.
EDIT: Here's a few facts for ya; let's see what you've got that's better.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272
The Cato institute? The right wing's trained ponies, who spit out papers on command? You actually believe a word they write?
They're spinning and lying by page 3!
Health care spending is not necessarily bad.
To a large degree, America spends money on
health care because it is a wealthy nation and
chooses to do so. Economists consider health
care a "normal good," meaning that spending
is positively correlated with income. As
incomes rise, people want more of that good.
Because we are a wealthy nation, we can and
do demand more health care.
Would it be considered rude to mention that we have a lower per capita income than many of these European countries?
http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm
Oh dear, despite having lower than some and comperable to most, we are spending TWO TO FOUR TIMES AS MUCH. And what are we getting? No appreciable improvement on any service, thought Cato has dug up some anecdotes that help their cause. "Well there's been some reports of wait times in Germany. But in America, there's none of those, the poor people don't even go to the doctor
"
I guess its true we have the highest cancer survival rates by anywhere from a percentage point or two to much larger. Of course we have worse Heart Disease mortality rates. But hey, I'm sure if they are willing to sit there and monkey through enough statistics, we'll come out smelling like daisies eventually, even if they have to throw a dozen studies on the floor. After all, we're spending twice what they are, we're probably getting SOMETHING for it, even if most of that money is wasted.
So sure, sit there and be sure that we have the best of the best of the best and it can't possibly be improved (except perhaps through MOAR FREE MARCATS!!11!!!11). After all its your opinion. You have the right to base it on bad information, logical fallacies, and utter nonsense, as any church will happily tell you.
Just don't ask me to take that opinion seriously.
Okay so you use left wing trained ponies. I'll stick with people who believe in freedom.
fishermage.blogspot.com
How about instead of launching more personal attacks you actually provide real data
Plus the Cato institute is far from right wing. Libertarians are not conservatives. We are beyond your left wing/right wing false dichotomy. Way to launch FURTHER personal attacks. More and more I simply see people of the left simply do not know how to have a polite discussion anymore. My how shrill you've become.
namecalling, argument to ridicule, the list of shabby tactics never ends.
READ the report and PROVE it's wrong; or find a reasonable critique and share it.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You know, the only reason people are looking upon some government financed method of providing health care is because the current system of supporting a large parasitical insurance industry is not providing the health care people need.
Portability of health care financing is a huge issue with many Americans. The current system is very expensive, but doesn't provide care for millions.
This is an issue of freedom for those who seek health care, because their freedom is severely restricted by the current non-functional system, which is about profit of insurance companies, not about health care for Americans.
I don't want a government run health care system. I've served in uniform, I've been un a government run system. Through the VA, I'm in a government run system. It's not the optimal way to provide health care.
But a single payer system is vastly superior to the current for profit fractured system we have now. It will be less expensive per capita under the current system.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
Actually, it seems all the single payer systems are rapidly becoming a larger and larger portions of those countries' budgets, and like all socialist systems will eventually collapse of its own weight. You either need government dictatorial rationing or market discipline.
The fact is OUR costs are rising here due to the government racket already screwing things up -- if we actually went to a more market oriented system, we'd be better off.
A single payer system IS government run health care, in the long run.
Why not have a single payer grocery system. Wouldn't that be vastly superior and less expensive? Of course not. What we need essentially is to open up markets for medicine in the same way -- allowing retail health care.
It's already happening where government isn't stopping it.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Oh and that large parasitical insurance industry was created by the same government you want to hand the whole thing over to.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Plus, we can argue the utilitarian arguments all day -- people tend to only believe the sources that support them, so there's no convincing. each considers their own subjective things as "facts."
What about the moral argument? By what right does one citizen point a gun to the head of another citizen and force that citizen to pay for his health care? Everything we do by government is something that we do by force. Why is it moral or ethical to force one group of people to pay for another groups' care?
fishermage.blogspot.com
You didn't read a word I posted.
That's okay, I guess your crazy philosophy insulates you from reality. And that, my friend, is a personal attack. It's okay, by blatantly ignoring the facts and figures and data I posted, you earned it. Don't worry, I'm sure the free market will save us all, it's like Jesus.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Socialized health care is obviously the way to go.
#1: it is less expensive per capita
#2: it provides coverage for everyone, allowing for a healthier society
#3 it fulfills constitutional principles of caring for the "general welfare of society'
#4: it is more equitable to a society that, as part of the social contract, mandates equal opportunity for everyone
Pretty simple if you think of it that way.
Black and white arguments against health care usually result in using false analogies for systems that simply work better when market forces are involved. Unfortunately most advocates of these free markets don't realize is that you need a social support system to bring those markets into fruition. The essentials: education, health care, shelter, food, protection.
Almost every (edit: developed!) nation provides these as essentials of living and participating in society. America does this too...minus one...health care. Pretty archaic if you ask me. I've seen examples of social systems that definitely play by free market principles without such social safety nets: pay for your police, your fire fighters, your primary education, and no welfare system minus religious charity. They don't do so hot.
Libertarian ideals fail in the real world. SOCIAL contracts, properly implemented with rigorously enforced constitutions, are where its at.
You didn't read a word I posted.
That's okay, I guess your crazy philosophy insulates you from reality. And that, my friend, is a personal attack. It's okay, by blatantly ignoring the facts and figures and data I posted, you earned it. Don't worry, I'm sure the free market will save us all, it's like Jesus.
I read every word posted, and like THIS post, it was more personal attacks and namecalling. Once again it seems your side of this simply doesn't know how decent people discuss things.
fishermage.blogspot.com
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
fishermage.blogspot.com
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
Every use of goverment to any end is the use of force to that end.
fishermage.blogspot.com
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
Every use of goverment to any end is the use of force to that end.
Oh brother. Srsly?
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
Every use of goverment to any end is the use of force to that end.
Oh brother. Srsly?
That is what government IS. Government are those things that we are willing to force people to do. Laws are instruments of force. Government programs are instruments of force. It's quite simply what they ARE by definition.
Play the childish argument to ridicule game all you want, you obviously don't know what government is by its very nature. I would say that disqualifies you from conversation on this matter.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I don't know about the rest of you sheep, but I'm about sick of paying other people to live.
If you can't afford health care, then you need to get a better job.
You can't afford to put food on the table? Get a better job.
I'm really tired of my hard earned money going to support the people that choose not to work. I'm sick of people having more kids than they can afford and then I get to split the bill. I'm sick of illegal immigrants getting free college when I had to pay every dollor of my education.
Do away with food stamps.
Do away with Medicaid/Medicare.
Know what happens when you go to the hospital/doctor when you don’t have health insurance? They send you a bill. They do not charge interest. Pay the bastards $10 bucks a month for the next 10 years and you’ll have that paid off. Don’t make me pay the bill with my tax dollars!
Here is a short story for you:
My wife's sister has 4 kids. She lives in these apartments. The government actually PAYS her to live there. Instead of paying rent like the rest of us she gets ~$10.00 a month to live where she is.
Why do soooo many people feel the need to have the government hold their hand cradle to grave?!?!
RON PAUL 2012!!!
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
Every use of goverment to any end is the use of force to that end.
Oh brother. Srsly?
That is what government IS. Government are those things that we are willing to force people to do. Laws are instruments of force. Government programs are instruments of force. It's quite simply what they ARE by definition.
Play the childish argument to ridicule game all you want, you obviously don't know what government is by its very nature. I would say that disqualifies you from conversation on this matter.
You can paint the picture anyway you want and advocate that "force is bad" and therefore "government is bad" but you fail in providing a pragmatic (or even idealistic) alternative.
Sure principled "force" (using your wide-arced definition) is used to enforce a social contract. It sure beats the alternative of arbitrary force in an anarchistic environment. But liberty in any practical sense is enforced through liberal democracies that protect positive liberties through social contracts. Or, as a libertarian, forgotten your "Treatise of Government" lectures in phil. class?
Philosophy was fun when I was 20. I prefer the real world now and real world solutions and not blanket criticisms of law and government. Reality check please.
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
Every use of goverment to any end is the use of force to that end.
Oh brother. Srsly?
That is what government IS. Government are those things that we are willing to force people to do. Laws are instruments of force. Government programs are instruments of force. It's quite simply what they ARE by definition.
Play the childish argument to ridicule game all you want, you obviously don't know what government is by its very nature. I would say that disqualifies you from conversation on this matter.
You can paint the picture anyway you want and advocate that "force is bad" and therefore "government is bad" but you fail in providing a pragmatic (or even idealistic) alternative.
Sure principled "force" (using your wide-arced definition) is used to enforce a social contract. It sure beats the alternative of arbitrary force in an anarchistic environment. But liberty in any practical sense is enforced through liberal democracies that protect positive liberties through social contracts. Or, as a libertarian, forgotten your "Treatise of Government" lectures in phil. class?
Philosophy was fun when I was 20. I prefer the real world now and real world solutions and not blanket criticisms of law and government. Reality check please.
I didn't say "force is bad" I merely said that GOVERNMENT is force by its very nature, and therefore we should be VERY careful how we limit that force when applied to our neighbors. I feel it is wrong to put a gun to your neighbor's head and take your health care form him.
You don't.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Heck, I agree with you. Why allow children to go to school for free? Im sick of paying for ungrateful children. That way 15 years down the road I can hire them at $1 an hou...wait what? Minimum wage? Why should the government tell me what I can pay my employees? How dare they! I'm going to drive down to the legislature and compla...what...a new road? What is this? Why am i paying for this so other people can use it? Everyone should get a pass for every road they have helped pay for or there should be a toll with a swipe card...enough of these freeloading drivers.
Moral of the story: Social welfare provides the structure society needs to be maintained and to keep it from collapsing. If you enable people who have money from the outset you eventually truncate a huge portion of your population who will eventually resent your education and wealth...and then your country turns into a constant police state. If you like this type of free enterprise system so much where basic necessities are not provided for? Move to Brazil or Argentina or something. Plenty of laissez-faire there.
Heck, I agree with you. Why allow children to go to school for free? Im sick of paying for ungrateful children. That way 15 years down the road I can hire them at $1 an hou...wait what? Minimum wage? Why should the government tell me what I can pay my employees? How dare they! I'm going to drive down to the legislature and compla...what...a new road? What is this? Why am i paying for this so other people can use it? Everyone should get a pass for every road they have helped pay for or there should be a toll with a swipe card...enough of these freeloading drivers.
Moral of the story: Social welfare provides the structure society needs to be maintained and to keep it from collapsing. If you enable people who have money from the outset you eventually truncate a huge portion of your population who will eventually resent your education and wealth...and then your country turns into a constant police state. If you like this type of free enterprise system so much where basic necessities are not provided for? Move to Brazil or Argentina or something. Plenty of laissez-faire there.
Once again, argument to ridicule. Thank you for showing you can't argue politely.
How about we stick to the topic? we can discuss other uses for government force in another thread. Why is it right and proper to use force to take the money from one person to pay for the health care of another.
If you really care so much about people who don't have health care, why aren;t you helping them? why are you instead advocating using force to take from one group and give to another? If you care, help people outright, don't force.
If YOU are right, everyone should be willing to help one another. If you need to force people, what makes you so sure you are right?
fishermage.blogspot.com
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
Every use of goverment to any end is the use of force to that end.
Oh brother. Srsly?
That is what government IS. Government are those things that we are willing to force people to do. Laws are instruments of force. Government programs are instruments of force. It's quite simply what they ARE by definition.
Play the childish argument to ridicule game all you want, you obviously don't know what government is by its very nature. I would say that disqualifies you from conversation on this matter.
You can paint the picture anyway you want and advocate that "force is bad" and therefore "government is bad" but you fail in providing a pragmatic (or even idealistic) alternative.
Sure principled "force" (using your wide-arced definition) is used to enforce a social contract. It sure beats the alternative of arbitrary force in an anarchistic environment. But liberty in any practical sense is enforced through liberal democracies that protect positive liberties through social contracts. Or, as a libertarian, forgotten your "Treatise of Government" lectures in phil. class?
Philosophy was fun when I was 20. I prefer the real world now and real world solutions and not blanket criticisms of law and government. Reality check please.
I didn't say "force is bad" I merely said that GOVERNMENT is force by its very nature, and therefore we should be VERY careful how we limit that force when applied to our neighbors. I feel it is wrong to put a gun to your neighbor's head and take your health care form him.
You don't.
I agree you have to be careful. Any force or enforcement of the social contract should be:
1. Non-arbitrary: rule of law, constitutions
2. Adaptable: functional tools and systems for change
3. Accountable: independent branches of government, remedies as strong as the rules
These things protect the population from their government. You won't always like the balance or the compromises made...but such is life.