Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I've found that a lot of libertarians do a good job of complaining about the way things currently are, but when it comes time for them to share their views on how things should be done they scream "Less government" or "Free Market" and run away.

I don't take them too seriously.  As someone said on this forum before.  They're just a protest party.

 

I haven't seen any of us scream anything here. We state less government or the free market, and expect educated people to know what that means, forgetting you are ignorant.

 

I see you've switched from calling everyone socialists to calling them ignorant.

 

It's a step forward I guess.

 

No, I generally call you and gameloading ignorant, because you are. He doesn't even read books! he said this himself here on this forum. I generally read up on all the liberal, conservative, and libertarian answers to today's issues on everything, and I expect others to do as well. I have read everything I can find from the other side, and have spent a lifetime challenging myself -- in fact I have been doing so for longer than you have been alive.

There are people here, like kiddy, whom don't call ignorant, because they are not ignorant. What is ironic he also knows that the modern liberalism you support has its roots in socialism, and he's not embarrassed or insulted by that either.

You however, are very ignorant of history and current affairs, and I am trying to help you by showing you your ignorance. It is an act of grace, not an insult. It's no crime to be ignorant, but you would be much better served if you actually learned a  bit about the things you  write about here.

What is bad is that you are arrogant in your ignorance. That's going be problematic for you wherever you go in life. I'm trying to help you and your arrogance and ignorance won't let you see this.

 

 

And I believe you are one of the most ignorant people I've ever had the pleasure to argue with online.

For every person that believes I'm ignorant, there is one that believes the same about you.

It's political bias.  Stop acting like you're above it.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I've found that a lot of libertarians do a good job of complaining about the way things currently are, but when it comes time for them to share their views on how things should be done they scream "Less government" or "Free Market" and run away.

I don't take them too seriously.  As someone said on this forum before.  They're just a protest party.

 

If your question was honest and asked "How do we get to a free market and how do we limit government" then I'd answer you.

I'm not running away, ask me a serious question and I'll answer it.

Plus, over the past year, I have shared cato papers, studies, essays from the LP,  Ron Paul and others about all of these things. I have linked them to whole books on the subjects we discuss here. They then ignore the stuff I present and declare it "biased," which to folks like Sabian means not worth reading -- when I take the time to read the work from the best and the worst from their side, as a point of respect for them, and in the search for greater understanding.

I wish you luck and Godspeed in this. You're nicer than me so maybe you will have more patience. It took me about six or seven months before I realized I was not dealing with honest folks here.

What happened with declaredemer when he wouldn't even read or comment on your report for the Campaign for Liberty is the norm around here, just as when I presented stuff to Xanthia about Japan. He's pretty much asked for stuff twice, then ignored the stuff twice.

I used to give them the benefit of the doubt until they removed all doubt.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I've found that a lot of libertarians do a good job of complaining about the way things currently are, but when it comes time for them to share their views on how things should be done they scream "Less government" or "Free Market" and run away.

I don't take them too seriously.  As someone said on this forum before.  They're just a protest party.

 

If your question was honest and asked "How do we get to a free market and how do we limit government" then I'd answer you.

I'm not running away, ask me a serious question and I'll answer it.

How do we get to a free market and how do we limit government?

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I've found that a lot of libertarians do a good job of complaining about the way things currently are, but when it comes time for them to share their views on how things should be done they scream "Less government" or "Free Market" and run away.

I don't take them too seriously.  As someone said on this forum before.  They're just a protest party.

 

I haven't seen any of us scream anything here. We state less government or the free market, and expect educated people to know what that means, forgetting you are ignorant.

 

I see you've switched from calling everyone socialists to calling them ignorant.

 

It's a step forward I guess.

 

No, I generally call you and gameloading ignorant, because you are. He doesn't even read books! he said this himself here on this forum. I generally read up on all the liberal, conservative, and libertarian answers to today's issues on everything, and I expect others to do as well. I have read everything I can find from the other side, and have spent a lifetime challenging myself -- in fact I have been doing so for longer than you have been alive.

There are people here, like kiddy, whom don't call ignorant, because they are not ignorant. What is ironic he also knows that the modern liberalism you support has its roots in socialism, and he's not embarrassed or insulted by that either.

You however, are very ignorant of history and current affairs, and I am trying to help you by showing you your ignorance. It is an act of grace, not an insult. It's no crime to be ignorant, but you would be much better served if you actually learned a  bit about the things you  write about here.

What is bad is that you are arrogant in your ignorance. That's going be problematic for you wherever you go in life. I'm trying to help you and your arrogance and ignorance won't let you see this.

 

 

 

 

And I believe you are one of the most ignorant people I've ever had the pleasure to argue with online.

 

For every person that believes I'm ignorant, there is one that believes the same about you.

 

It's political bias.  Stop acting like you're above it.

Ignorance isn't about what people think of you, it's what you know vs what you don't know.

I admit freely I have an extreme bias, but I know and read all the stuff from your side, the conservative side, and other points of view regularly. You don't. That is why you are ignorant and I am not, even if we are both biased.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I've found that a lot of libertarians do a good job of complaining about the way things currently are, but when it comes time for them to share their views on how things should be done they scream "Less government" or "Free Market" and run away.

I don't take them too seriously.  As someone said on this forum before.  They're just a protest party.

  Well, there are those of us who are ideologically in the socialist category, but practically libertarian, because of how corrupt our government is; I wouldn't trust the government to tie my shoes.

  If I lived in a perfect world, then I would definitely accept the title of socialist, but I don't, because the US government has shown time and time again that it works more like a corporation than a governing body with the interests of the people in mind.

 Take the rating agencies and other conspiring parties in the financial crisis: What they did was literally fraud, since they overrated bad securities, yet they haven't been investigated at all. What about the CEO's that literally bypassed the analysts and standard investment procedure to make sure that their companies weren't properly hedged?  No investigations, nada.

   What about those closed parties where lobbyists shower politicians in gifts and monetary contributions so that they get legislation in their favor? Nothing ever happens there, right? 

   That is why I vote libertarian: I would like to see less government control, until laws are put in place that will give the people some kind of mechanism to enforce the bureaucracy.

   In my opinion, voting is not sufficient, since once officials are voted in the public has it's hands tied until the next election period; there is also the problem of overrepresentation relative to other candidates in the media due to affluence (whether it's their own ,or throw contributions) and not necessarily aptitude.

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I've found that a lot of libertarians do a good job of complaining about the way things currently are, but when it comes time for them to share their views on how things should be done they scream "Less government" or "Free Market" and run away.

I don't take them too seriously.  As someone said on this forum before.  They're just a protest party.

 

If your question was honest and asked "How do we get to a free market and how do we limit government" then I'd answer you.

I'm not running away, ask me a serious question and I'll answer it.

 

How do we get to a free market and how do we limit government?

Thanks for asking the question sepher.  My answer assumes that we cannot take a shotgun approach to returning to a free market and reducing government.  That said I will start with the first step and why it is so important.

The first step is to Audit the Federal Reserve.  You and I can help this happen by petitioning our senators and representatives in congress to support HR1207 and S604.  For more information on this bill check http://auditthefed.com  Go to this website and it will explain why auditing the fed is so important.

Libertarians believe that auditing the Fed will result in the following.  People will become fed up with the Fed (no pun intended) and will wish to either limit its powers, or hopefully, dissolve it.  The Central Bank theory is bunk and truely only helps those at the top of the socioeconomic ladder and hurts EVERYONE ELSE.  Libertarians have ulterior motives for wanting to End the Fed.  We believe many of the social programs that government imposes upon its people are not sustainable and would force the government in to bankruptcy because of two reasons.

1) To tax the populace at the levels necessary to support these programs would be political suicide

2) Its much easier for the government to tax us through inflation and the monetizing of our debt than to raise taxes

If you'd like to ask a further question about how the Fed as an organization is an agent of Big Government and anti Free Market I'd be more than happy to explain and direct you to more sources.  I could go on for hours about how the Fed is bad :)

So that is the first step.  We believe that by auditing the fed we will convince enough people that ending the fed is in their best interests, and by doing so will return important free market forces to our economy (market based interest rates, market based currency prices, etc) and will inevitably reduce government's reach as their current programs will become that much more unafforable.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I've found that a lot of libertarians do a good job of complaining about the way things currently are, but when it comes time for them to share their views on how things should be done they scream "Less government" or "Free Market" and run away.

I don't take them too seriously.  As someone said on this forum before.  They're just a protest party.

 

I haven't seen any of us scream anything here. We state less government or the free market, and expect educated people to know what that means, forgetting you are ignorant.

 

I see you've switched from calling everyone socialists to calling them ignorant.

 

It's a step forward I guess.

 

No, I generally call you and gameloading ignorant, because you are. He doesn't even read books! he said this himself here on this forum. I generally read up on all the liberal, conservative, and libertarian answers to today's issues on everything, and I expect others to do as well. I have read everything I can find from the other side, and have spent a lifetime challenging myself -- in fact I have been doing so for longer than you have been alive.

There are people here, like kiddy, whom don't call ignorant, because they are not ignorant. What is ironic he also knows that the modern liberalism you support has its roots in socialism, and he's not embarrassed or insulted by that either.

You however, are very ignorant of history and current affairs, and I am trying to help you by showing you your ignorance. It is an act of grace, not an insult. It's no crime to be ignorant, but you would be much better served if you actually learned a  bit about the things you  write about here.

What is bad is that you are arrogant in your ignorance. That's going be problematic for you wherever you go in life. I'm trying to help you and your arrogance and ignorance won't let you see this.

 

 

 

 

And I believe you are one of the most ignorant people I've ever had the pleasure to argue with online.

 

For every person that believes I'm ignorant, there is one that believes the same about you.

 

It's political bias.  Stop acting like you're above it.

 

Ignorance isn't about what people think of you, it's what you know vs what you don't know.

I admit freely I have an extreme bias, but I know and read all the stuff from your side, the conservative side, and other points of view regularly. You don't. That is why you are ignorant and I am not, even if we are both biased.

 

You know what I read?  Or you assume?

I read plenty, and decide most of it is bullshit. 

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 

You know what I read?  Or you assume?

 

I read plenty, and decide most of it is bullshit. 

If you would, please name some economic books you've read and if you could give a synopsis of each one (for those like me who may not have read your example) and why you think its true/false.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 

You know what I read?  Or you assume?

 

I read plenty, and decide most of it is bullshit. 

 

If you would, please name some economic books you've read and if you could give a synopsis of each one (for those like me who may not have read your example) and why you think its true/false.

Economics?  We were talking health care.  I don't consider health care an economic issue.  It's a social issue through and through.

Tell me what books you've read on social responsibility and write me a 10 page paper on it.  Have it on my desk by tomorrow.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by smokemonsc

 

If you would, please name some economic books you've read and if you could give a synopsis of each one (for those like me who may not have read your example) and why you think its true/false.

 

Economics?  We were talking health care.  I don't consider health care an economic issue.  It's a social issue through and through.

 

 

Tell me what books you've read on social responsibility and write me a 10 page paper on it.  Have it on my desk by tomorrow.

 

 

Everything has an economic component regardless if you want to admit it because nearly every single human action involves some sort of exchange with another.  This is a basic truth of economics.  If you think about it everything has an economic cost too.  This is why I ask you what experience you have in the field of economics.

Social responsability is not a science like economics is.  Social responsibility is based off morals which vary from society to society.  The laws of supply and demand can be studied, predicted, and verified.  Can you do the same with Social Responsibility?  I suppose you could claim that it has scientific applications which I'd agree with to a point.

Please answer the question though, I will not pretend to be an expert but I am one class away from a bachelors degree in it (if I ever choose to go back =p).

You must answer how will you pay for this scheme, that is why economics is so important, if you ignore this you ignore a whole slew of potential consequences.  People in general are well known for failing to plan for them.

Well this became interesting...

Anyways, i'm not sure why so many people are angry about all these different view points, maybe its the Libra in me but i can see good and bad in all of them, i'm basically re-learning stuff i should have never shrugged off...but thats another story for another day.

I'll just say it's been awhile for me to be able to sit down and just absorb information like i used too, being a roughneck (not oil by the way, term is used for other hard labor type of work, and i love manual labor for some reason lol)  for many years pretty much took the steam from me heh, but its paying off and i'm slowly getting back into what i love, which is reading and just plain learning. (not that i completely stopped learning, just my brain was overloaded with too much if you know what i mean)

I have a lot of catching up to do.  So thanks for any help you all give, its very much appreciated.  i know sometimes i just feel like trolling around so i'm guilty of being a pain in the ass too heh.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by smokemonsc

 

If you would, please name some economic books you've read and if you could give a synopsis of each one (for those like me who may not have read your example) and why you think its true/false.

 

Economics?  We were talking health care.  I don't consider health care an economic issue.  It's a social issue through and through.

 

 

Tell me what books you've read on social responsibility and write me a 10 page paper on it.  Have it on my desk by tomorrow.

 

 

 

Everything has an economic component regardless if you want to admit it because nearly every single human action involves some sort of exchange with another.  This is a basic truth of economics.  I know you'd like to ignore this simple fact because I suspect we'll soon find out your ideology is bankrupt and unsustainable.

 

So now, are you going to commit to a debate or are you going continue screaming

"ITS A SOCIAL ISSUE YOU ARE ALL MORALLY INFERIOR TO ME"
 

Choice is yours.

 

We were not debating the economics of health care.  We were debating whether it was a right.  You're the one who jumped in and wanted to argue economics.  Turning a 180 so that you can debate something you feel comfortable with instead of discussing what we were.

And yes, this is 99.9% a social issue.  It's not, "Can we economically do it?"  its "We are going to do it, so whats the most economic way to do it."

You really want my economic view of health care?  I think more people with quality health care will greatly greatly improve our economy.  More people working, more people spending, etc.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I've found that a lot of libertarians do a good job of complaining about the way things currently are, but when it comes time for them to share their views on how things should be done they scream "Less government" or "Free Market" and run away.

I don't take them too seriously.  As someone said on this forum before.  They're just a protest party.

 

I haven't seen any of us scream anything here. We state less government or the free market, and expect educated people to know what that means, forgetting you are ignorant.

 

I see you've switched from calling everyone socialists to calling them ignorant.

 

It's a step forward I guess.

 

No, I generally call you and gameloading ignorant, because you are. He doesn't even read books! he said this himself here on this forum. I generally read up on all the liberal, conservative, and libertarian answers to today's issues on everything, and I expect others to do as well. I have read everything I can find from the other side, and have spent a lifetime challenging myself -- in fact I have been doing so for longer than you have been alive.

There are people here, like kiddy, whom don't call ignorant, because they are not ignorant. What is ironic he also knows that the modern liberalism you support has its roots in socialism, and he's not embarrassed or insulted by that either.

You however, are very ignorant of history and current affairs, and I am trying to help you by showing you your ignorance. It is an act of grace, not an insult. It's no crime to be ignorant, but you would be much better served if you actually learned a  bit about the things you  write about here.

What is bad is that you are arrogant in your ignorance. That's going be problematic for you wherever you go in life. I'm trying to help you and your arrogance and ignorance won't let you see this.

 

 

 

 

And I believe you are one of the most ignorant people I've ever had the pleasure to argue with online.

 

For every person that believes I'm ignorant, there is one that believes the same about you.

 

It's political bias.  Stop acting like you're above it.

 

Ignorance isn't about what people think of you, it's what you know vs what you don't know.

I admit freely I have an extreme bias, but I know and read all the stuff from your side, the conservative side, and other points of view regularly. You don't. That is why you are ignorant and I am not, even if we are both biased.

 

 

You know what I read?  Or you assume?

 

I read plenty, and decide most of it is bullshit. 

One can tell when someone is not well read by their conversation. It is pretty obvious you are fairly ignorant on most of the things we discuss -- this is why you get so angry. This is why I say you are arrogant in your ignorance. You are even more arrogant than I am, yet there is nothing backing your arrogance up. You have nothing to show off. I on the other hand am a pain in the ass because I am well read, and know pretty much everything you are going to say before you say it, because I have heard all of our arguments before and dealt with them years ago.

I am trying to help you here, and you just get more pissed off -- like a few others here. Arrogant in your ignorance.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

We were not debating the economics of health care.  We were debating whether it was a right.  You're the one who jumped in and wanted to argue economics.  Turning a 180 so that you can debate something you feel comfortable with instead of discussing what we were.

 

And yes, this is 99.9% a social issue.  It's not, "Can we economically do it?"  its "We are going to do it, so whats the most economic way to do it."

 

You really want my economic view of health care?  I think more people with quality health care will greatly greatly improve our economy.  More people working, more people spending, etc.

You responded prior to my edits which I had hoped would get in before anyone else read it heh :)

Ok, I see we were talking about two different things.  Lets talk about healthcare as a right then.

As I've stated in other threads I believe that we are all born with whats called natural rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

Wiki does a good job explaining most of the philosophy behind natural rights, I also refer to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM which more accurately describes what I think are our natural rights and the philosophy behind them.

The American Constitution explicity says what our rights are as individuals (and yes I think this applies to ALL, even non-citizens) The rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  I would also tack on Property as a natural right.  Property being defined as the product of your time and talents.

Healthcare as a service does not fall in to that right.  The reason being is that healthcare is a service that is the product of someone elses time and talents.  I do not have a higher claim on that persons "Property" (again the product of their time and talents) than that person even if my own life depends on it.  It is simply a need, albeit a very important one!  If I did have a higher claim then that person is my slave and must do as I say.

Even if its the government mandating that I be given access to this service, it does not make that person any less of a slave, even if they are paid for it.  The moment you take away a person's ability to deny service then you have made that person a slave.  Even if they are doing it voluntarily they are still slaves (in my opinoin of course).  It is immoral for someone to initiate force upon another, even if it is done via a third party like the government.

Originally posted by Scalebane

Well this became interesting...

Anyways, i'm not sure why so many people are angry about all these different view points, maybe its the Libra in me but i can see good and bad in all of them, i'm basically re-learning stuff i should have never shrugged off...but thats another story for another day.

I'll just say it's been awhile for me to be able to sit down and just absorb information like i used too, being a roughneck (not oil by the way, term is used for other hard labor type of work, and i love manual labor for some reason lol)  for many years pretty much took the steam from me heh, but its paying off and i'm slowly getting back into what i love, which is reading and just plain learning. (not that i completely stopped learning, just my brain was overloaded with too much if you know what i mean)

I have a lot of catching up to do.  So thanks for any help you all give, its very much appreciated.  i know sometimes i just feel like trolling around so i'm guilty of being a pain in the ass too heh.

I know how you feel scale, I wish I had paid more attention to my earlier classes in school :)  I find myself now re-reading the classics that I had ignored in high school lol.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Scalebane

Well this became interesting...

Anyways, i'm not sure why so many people are angry about all these different view points, maybe its the Libra in me but i can see good and bad in all of them, i'm basically re-learning stuff i should have never shrugged off...but thats another story for another day.

I'll just say it's been awhile for me to be able to sit down and just absorb information like i used too, being a roughneck (not oil by the way, term is used for other hard labor type of work, and i love manual labor for some reason lol)  for many years pretty much took the steam from me heh, but its paying off and i'm slowly getting back into what i love, which is reading and just plain learning. (not that i completely stopped learning, just my brain was overloaded with too much if you know what i mean)

I have a lot of catching up to do.  So thanks for any help you all give, its very much appreciated.  i know sometimes i just feel like trolling around so i'm guilty of being a pain in the ass too heh.

 

I know how you feel scale, I wish I had paid more attention to my earlier classes in school :)  I find myself now re-reading the classics that I had ignored in high school lol.

Yup did the same thing in my twenties, then chose the path of autodidact. Keep it up and you can someday be a dick like me lol.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 

 

We were not debating the economics of health care.  We were debating whether it was a right.  You're the one who jumped in and wanted to argue economics.  Turning a 180 so that you can debate something you feel comfortable with instead of discussing what we were.

 

And yes, this is 99.9% a social issue.  It's not, "Can we economically do it?"  its "We are going to do it, so whats the most economic way to do it."

 

You really want my economic view of health care?  I think more people with quality health care will greatly greatly improve our economy.  More people working, more people spending, etc.

   Actually, he is right: Economics is the social science dealing with allocations of scarce resources for optimizing something. Optimizing the welfare of individuals through health care is definitely in the realm of economics as it deals with finding the best way to distribute funds from the government (obviously from taxpayers) to medical professionals and providers.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Sabiancym

We were not debating the economics of health care.  We were debating whether it was a right.  You're the one who jumped in and wanted to argue economics.  Turning a 180 so that you can debate something you feel comfortable with instead of discussing what we were.

 

And yes, this is 99.9% a social issue.  It's not, "Can we economically do it?"  its "We are going to do it, so whats the most economic way to do it."

 

You really want my economic view of health care?  I think more people with quality health care will greatly greatly improve our economy.  More people working, more people spending, etc.

 

You responded prior to my edits which I had hoped would get in before anyone else read it heh :)

Ok, I see we were talking about two different things.  Lets talk about healthcare as a right then.

As I've stated in other threads I believe that we are all born with whats called natural rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

Wiki does a good job explaining most of the philosophy behind natural rights, I also refer to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM which more accurately describes what I think are our natural rights and the philosophy behind them.

The American Constitution explicity says what our rights are as individuals (and yes I think this applies to ALL, even non-citizens) The rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  I would also tack on Property as a natural right.  Property being defined as the product of your time and talents.

Healthcare as a service does not fall in to that right.  The reason being is that healthcare is a service that is the product of someone elses time and talents.  I do not have a higher claim on that persons "Property" (again the product of their time and talents) than that person even if my own life depends on it.  It is simply a need, albeit a very important one!  If I did have a higher claim then that person is my slave and must do as I say.

Even if its the government mandating that I be given access to this service, it does not make that person any less of a slave, even if they are paid for it.  The moment you take away a person's ability to deny service then you have made that person a slave.  Even if they are doing it voluntarily they are still slaves (in my opinoin of course).  It is immoral for someone to initiate force upon another, even if it is done via a third party like the government.

 

That entire argument means nothing to me as I do not use the constitution for the basis of my morals and political beliefs.  I believe it is a good document, but still has it's flaws.  Call me un-American, immoral, whatever, but I believe that today's people know what is best for them.  Not some guys 250 years ago.

I know Fisher will probably throw out the "He doesn't believe in the constitution" for the next 3 months worth of my posts, but I'm fine with it.  I won't blindly follow it because my grade school social studies teachers said it was the best thing since....well before sliced bread.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Sabiancym

We were not debating the economics of health care.  We were debating whether it was a right.  You're the one who jumped in and wanted to argue economics.  Turning a 180 so that you can debate something you feel comfortable with instead of discussing what we were.

 

And yes, this is 99.9% a social issue.  It's not, "Can we economically do it?"  its "We are going to do it, so whats the most economic way to do it."

 

You really want my economic view of health care?  I think more people with quality health care will greatly greatly improve our economy.  More people working, more people spending, etc.

 

You responded prior to my edits which I had hoped would get in before anyone else read it heh :)

Ok, I see we were talking about two different things.  Lets talk about healthcare as a right then.

As I've stated in other threads I believe that we are all born with whats called natural rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

Wiki does a good job explaining most of the philosophy behind natural rights, I also refer to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM which more accurately describes what I think are our natural rights and the philosophy behind them.

The American Constitution explicity says what our rights are as individuals (and yes I think this applies to ALL, even non-citizens) The rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  I would also tack on Property as a natural right.  Property being defined as the product of your time and talents.

Healthcare as a service does not fall in to that right.  The reason being is that healthcare is a service that is the product of someone elses time and talents.  I do not have a higher claim on that persons "Property" (again the product of their time and talents) than that person even if my own life depends on it.  It is simply a need, albeit a very important one!  If I did have a higher claim then that person is my slave and must do as I say.

Even if its the government mandating that I be given access to this service, it does not make that person any less of a slave, even if they are paid for it.  The moment you take away a person's ability to deny service then you have made that person a slave.  Even if they are doing it voluntarily they are still slaves (in my opinoin of course).  It is immoral for someone to initiate force upon another, even if it is done via a third party like the government.

 

 

That entire argument means nothing to me as I do not use the constitution for the basis of my morals and political beliefs.  I believe it is a good document, but still has it's flaws.  Call me un-American, immoral, whatever, but I believe that today's people know what is best for them.  Not some guys 250 years ago.

I know Fisher will probably throw out the "He doesn't believe in the constitution" for the next 3 months worth of my posts, but I'm fine with it.  I won't blindly follow it because my grade school social studies teachers said it was the best thing since....well before sliced bread.

Wow, they taught that in your grade school?

Anyway, what are its flaws? I believe it has its flaws as well, and those flaws led to this socialist mess we have today -- but I am interested in what YOU think.

Remember I have never said it is a holy document, never said it was perfect either -- merely that I agree with the philosophy that led to it.

But let's talk about your opinion.

What do you feel is wrong with the Constitution?

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Sabiancym

We were not debating the economics of health care.  We were debating whether it was a right.  You're the one who jumped in and wanted to argue economics.  Turning a 180 so that you can debate something you feel comfortable with instead of discussing what we were.

 

And yes, this is 99.9% a social issue.  It's not, "Can we economically do it?"  its "We are going to do it, so whats the most economic way to do it."

 

You really want my economic view of health care?  I think more people with quality health care will greatly greatly improve our economy.  More people working, more people spending, etc.

 

You responded prior to my edits which I had hoped would get in before anyone else read it heh :)

Ok, I see we were talking about two different things.  Lets talk about healthcare as a right then.

As I've stated in other threads I believe that we are all born with whats called natural rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

Wiki does a good job explaining most of the philosophy behind natural rights, I also refer to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM which more accurately describes what I think are our natural rights and the philosophy behind them.

The American Constitution explicity says what our rights are as individuals (and yes I think this applies to ALL, even non-citizens) The rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  I would also tack on Property as a natural right.  Property being defined as the product of your time and talents.

Healthcare as a service does not fall in to that right.  The reason being is that healthcare is a service that is the product of someone elses time and talents.  I do not have a higher claim on that persons "Property" (again the product of their time and talents) than that person even if my own life depends on it.  It is simply a need, albeit a very important one!  If I did have a higher claim then that person is my slave and must do as I say.

Even if its the government mandating that I be given access to this service, it does not make that person any less of a slave, even if they are paid for it.  The moment you take away a person's ability to deny service then you have made that person a slave.  Even if they are doing it voluntarily they are still slaves (in my opinoin of course).  It is immoral for someone to initiate force upon another, even if it is done via a third party like the government.

 

 

That entire argument means nothing to me as I do not use the constitution for the basis of my morals and political beliefs.  I believe it is a good document, but still has it's flaws.  Call me un-American, immoral, whatever, but I believe that today's people know what is best for them.  Not some guys 250 years ago.

I know Fisher will probably throw out the "He doesn't believe in the constitution" for the next 3 months worth of my posts, but I'm fine with it.  I won't blindly follow it because my grade school social studies teachers said it was the best thing since....well before sliced bread.

Then what backwoods foundation are you basing your beliefs on? 

Your basically saying that what you want is un-American since the constitution defines what being American is especially when it comes to health care. 

If your not going to follow the foundation of this country then your thoughts on the matter of health care in the US is not valid. 

I'd also like to hear how you found your morals and what documentation they are based off of.  Because they defiantly sound different than any I've ever heard of.