There is no "right" to health care
K
might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
to stop providing them.
You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
"right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
m...@privacy.net
>You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>"right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
>pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>
>That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
And you have no "right" to anything you own cause you
did NOT create it
It is all "on loan" from God and you are just
"borrowing" it
You didn't even create the plant that makes the cotton
that your jeans are made! Nor did you create the
person who sewed them together!
All belongs to God
You don't really "own" anything
K
> K <Kvis...@live.con> wrote:
>
>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>
>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>
> And you have no "right" to anything you own cause you
> did NOT create it
False. I created the value that I traded to obtain the things I own.
In some few cases - not many - I created the things I own myself. I
have a right to them; no one else has any right to them.
No one has a right to my effort.
missussex
> >> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
> >> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
> >> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
> >> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
> >> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>
> >> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law enforcement,
and firefighting services either. But all civilized societies provide
these services to their citizens, who pay for it with taxes, because
we all agree it is in the best interest of society.
Mrs Irish Mike
Damn straight! You must be some type of Constitutional Law genius.
Why stop at this medical care nonsense? No one has the right to clean
water. If I want to pee in the river, I shouldn't have to care about
those people who live downstream.
And clean air? Where in the constitution does it say I can't open a
lead smelter next door to someone's preschool?
I think my neighbors have no right to complain when I start raising
pigs in my back yard. If they don't like the smell, they should just
shut their damn windows.
I'm tired of the weak and infirmed taking valuable resources. If you
can't get out of bed, we should make all cripples into biodiesel. Lets
cut the BS and do what we want to do and kill all those not fast
enough, smart enough or dare I say, not able to properly camaflauge
themselves in a snowstorm.
They pulled this rights crap when they built the interstate road
system. They said it was for military logistics in order to protect
the country. Now everyone gets on it to take vacations in National
Parks.
WAIT, WAIT!!! I GOT IT!!! The government has only the right to
protect our borders. You with me? OK, so we need to protect the
borders with people who are healthy enough to stand and fight. We give
health care to our men and women in uniform already, but we need to
ensure a steady supply of fodder... er I mean young people to protect
us from hoards of collectivist attackers. So we need to keep our
youngsters healthy; ergo we have a right and a duty to provide health
care to the young.
Next we have to start thinking if the numbers of collectivists
overwhelm our military, it will be up to regular citizens to stand up
to the invasion. Again, we need a healthy population to protect us
from bands of looting Socialists. So giving health care to the general
population is just one more way we can protect our borders.
Mrs Irish Mike
>
> False. I created the value that I traded to obtain the things I own.
> In some few cases - not many - I created the things I own myself. I
> have a right to them; no one else has any right to them.
>
> No one has a right to my effort.
Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you, mine
mine mine mine.
Solution: remedial preschool in order to fully comprehend the lesson
of sharing.
John Galt
You think taxation is "sharing"?
Please. The issue has more moving parts than that.
JG
Mrs Irish Mike
I am waiting for all you John Galts to shit or get off the pot. Take
to 'superior' minds and riches and move to some 'effing island like
you 'threaten' to. The sooner you leave the better for the rest of
Americans.
So when you leaving?
Chaos out of Order
Just because there isn't a right doesn't mean there shouldn't be a
right.
There are millions who work, many who I'm sure work harder than you
do--you just sound like one of those rich boys pampered by mommy and
daddy--yet they have no health coverage. They toil away to make their
employers wealthy, benefiting only marginally from their labors while
some Wall Street fatty sits on his butt and grows ever wealthier off
of that labor.
John Galt
> On Oct 9, 1:44 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>> False. I created the value that I traded to obtain the things I own.
>>>> In some few cases - not many - I created the things I own myself. I
>>>> have a right to them; no one else has any right to them.
>>>> No one has a right to my effort.
>>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you, mine
>>> mine mine mine.
>>> Solution: remedial preschool in order to fully comprehend the lesson
>>> of sharing.
>> You think taxation is "sharing"?
>>
>> Please. The issue has more moving parts than that.
>>
>> JG
>
> I am waiting for all you John Galts to shit or get off the pot.
Wait all you like. Are you doing to answer the question? Is taxation, to
you "sharing?"
Take
> to 'superior' minds and riches and move to some 'effing island like
> you 'threaten' to.
Many already have, many more probably will. Are you going to answer the
question?
The sooner you leave the better for the rest of
> Americans.
I *am* an American, and have as many votes as you do. (OK, I guess
you're not going to answer the question.)
>
> So when you leaving?
My preference is to beat you looters' heads into the ground. You never
succeed for long, since your economic policies are unsustainable, and
the electorate always comes to their senses.
This time, it looks like a very short learning curve.
JG
Ga...@comcast.net
"K" <Kvis...@live.con> wrote in message
news:8dydnawBZPGe6lLX...@earthlink.com...
of course we do, and if you don't cooperate with our taking it, then we have
ways of dealing with
shitheads like you,
just get with the program and shut up,otherwise the consequences are too
terrible to contemplate,
we'll turn you hillbillies into road tar
Mrs Irish Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your name you use is John Galt. John Galt was rich and talented. Are
you? John Galt left because he didn't want to share. So when are you
leaving? That is the question.
To your question, no I don't think taxing is sharing. Your money is
not your money. Your money belongs to the USA, it says so right on the
bill. You could be taxed or the government can just print more and you
will be taxed by making your money worth less. If it was your money,
you could just print more of it.
You don't like taxes, move to a place that doesn't tax. Move to
Somolia, no taxes there if you have the right buddies. Heck, you could
become a warlord and collect your own taxes.
Speaking of taxes, the US collects less taxes then any other country
that has White people as a majority. Yet, the US has more non-White
people then all those higher taxed places. Could be that non-Whites
cause lower taxes. Think?
So, about this John Galt thing; Are you leaving? Soon? Or are you
just another 'John Galt' hypocrit?
RickMerrill
You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've never been
sick, then you might not understand that sickness makes you unhappy.
You have a constitutional right to purchase health care.
John Galt
In the book? Incorrect. He was the latter, and passed on any chance of
the former because his invention would be stolen from him .
Are
> you? John Galt left because he didn't want to share.
No, he left because he didn't want his invention to provide benefit to
those who stole it from him.
> So when are you
> leaving? That is the question.
When it is clear that the place is corrupt beyond redemption.
>
> To your question, no I don't think taxing is sharing. Your money is
> not your money. Your money belongs to the USA, it says so right on the
> bill.
Incorrect. The bill is simply a convenient representation of what
belongs to me. Other representations (where there is no "property of the
US" inscription to cloud the issue) might be a share of stock, a mutual
fund, a municipal bond, or the simple acknowlegement by a bank that the
equity in my home is worth something by lending me funds (paid in a bank
check, without any "USA whatever" written on it ) against that equity.
> You could be taxed or the government can just print more and you
> will be taxed by making your money worth less. If it was your money,
> you could just print more of it.
They could, if I were stupid enough to keep my money in cash in a
mattress. However, I do not.
>
> You don't like taxes, move to a place that doesn't tax. Move to
> Somolia, no taxes there if you have the right buddies. Heck, you could
> become a warlord and collect your own taxes.
God, will the puerile "Somalia" canard ever end? What, did you last
travel abroad, in the 50's? Are you seriously unaware that there are no
shortage of countries in the would with standards of living now
perfectly comparable to the US that manage their economies quite well
without high levels of taxation?
>
> Speaking of taxes, the US collects less taxes then any other country
> that has White people as a majority.
Incorrect. The total tax wedge is lower in the UK, Switzerland, Ireland,
Australia, and New Zealand.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_wor-total-tax-wedge-single-worker
Underestimating what we pay in taxes is a common error due to the fact
that most people forget to calculate our *VERY HIGH* (by world
standards) rates of property taxation.
Yet, the US has more non-White
> people then all those higher taxed places. Could be that non-Whites
> cause lower taxes. Think?
>
> So, about this John Galt thing; Are you leaving? Soon? Or are you
> just another 'John Galt' hypocrit?
You have evidently forgotten how the book ends. Get your mother to read
it to you.
JG
Geopinion
There is a right to health care if we, the people, decide there is.
We aren't limited to rights specifically outlined in the Constitution,
but are assumed to possess a whole host of unenumerated rights. It is
also within our power to decide that there are rights and policies
that serve the greater good, and there is nothing in the constitution
that prohibits that.
MLW
Rudy Canoza
That's a lie, of course. It says no such thing.
ne...@millions.com
Every morning I go out in our back garden, take a hand-full of coins.
I then throw them up in the air. Those coins that fly on upward belong
to God. Those that come down belong to me.
DCI
Rod Speed
There is no god. Just an endless variety of crutches for pathetically inadequate 'minds'
Jim_Higgins
Psalm 14:1
K
> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>
>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>
> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law enforcement,
> and firefighting services either.
That's right.
K
> On Oct 9, 9:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service. Someone
>> might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
>> doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
>> to stop providing them.
>>
>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>
>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>
> Damn straight! You must be some type of Constitutional Law genius.
No, just a solid lay person.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>
>> False. I created the value that I traded to obtain the things I own.
>> In some few cases - not many - I created the things I own myself. I
>> have a right to them; no one else has any right to them.
>>
>> No one has a right to my effort.
>
> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you, mine
> mine mine mine.
Right. Piss and moan all you like, but it doesn't change the *fact*
that no one has a right to my effort.
K
It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to contract,
and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
ne...@millions.com
And couple that with the Constitution's amendment regarding due
process before taking someone's propertly and personal effects.
DCI
ne...@millions.com
<wilm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 9, 9:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service. Someone
>> might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
>> doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
>> to stop providing them.
>>
>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>
>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>
>Damn straight! You must be some type of Constitutional Law genius.
>
> Why stop at this medical care nonsense? No one has the right to clean
>water. If I want to pee in the river, I shouldn't have to care about
>those people who live downstream.
(unny stuff clipped)
Nor do you have care about the people upstream who will be blamed for
you lack consideration.
The folks in government are then left to try to promote the welfare .
. . Well you already know the rest of it.
Enjoy.
DCI
ne...@millions.com
I believe this program should be forced upon CEO's and their brethren
in the corporated world, banks included. If they pass, great; it they
fail, out the penthouse windows they go.
Donn
ne...@millions.com
RUDY CANOZA!!! Are you the same Rudy Canoza of prior fame? Are you
back with us?
DCI
Nickname unavailable
> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service. Someone
> might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
> doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
> to stop providing them.
>
> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>
> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
that is not what the founders said, and the courts agree. the
founders said we the people, to promote and provide for the general
welfare, and here it is,
here is the real truth,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief
introductory
statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding
principles that the
Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms
it states, and courts
have referred to it as reliable evidence of,
the Founding Fathers'
intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning
and what they hoped it
would achieve (especially as compared with the
Articles of
Confederation).
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
the
common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
i know you are having trouble understanding that your idiotology is
wrong, it must be earth shaking to find out your whole belief system
was built on lies, but be a big boy, and come to grips with it.
Nickname unavailable
you dumped your subsidized stocks yet, and are walking the talk:)
Roy Culley
no_...@void.nul writes:
>
> Only a fool says there is no God!
Only a fool believes in a 'God' for which there is zero evidence and
based only on primitive myths.
Nickname unavailable
> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 1:44 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> >>>> False. I created the value that I traded to obtain the things I own.
> >>>> In some few cases - not many - I created the things I own myself. I
> >>>> have a right to them; no one else has any right to them.
> >>>> No one has a right to my effort.
> >>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you, mine
> >>> mine mine mine.
> >>> Solution: remedial preschool in order to fully comprehend the lesson
> >>> of sharing.
> >> You think taxation is "sharing"?
>
> >> Please. The issue has more moving parts than that.
>
> >> JG
>
> > I am waiting for all you John Galts to shit or get off the pot.
>
> Wait all you like. Are you doing to answer the question? Is taxation, to
> you "sharing?"
>
yes, if it promotes the common good.
> Take
>
> > to 'superior' minds and riches and move to some 'effing island like
> > you 'threaten' to.
>
> Many already have, many more probably will. Are you going to answer the
> question?
>
good, and lets make sure that patriotic unselfish americans do not
have to subsidize the protection of your private property. maybe the
commies you love so much in china will protect your wealth:)
> The sooner you leave the better for the rest of
>
> > Americans.
>
> I *am* an American, and have as many votes as you do. (OK, I guess
> you're not going to answer the question.)
>
she does not have to. the question is selfish, and the rest of us
know it.
>
>
> > So when you leaving?
>
> My preference is to beat you looters' heads into the ground. You never
> succeed for long, since your economic policies are unsustainable, and
> the electorate always comes to their senses.
>
ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a wall street investor calls
patriotic americans looters. me thinks you have a long wait ahead
before you see "YOUR" looters back in power.
> This time, it looks like a very short learning curve.
>
you ain't seen nothing yet moron, wait till the world really wakes
up, to what has been created, and the billions that will go without
because of it. you better be ready to slink under some rot where you
belong, because the long arm of the laws of the world, will be
reaching for you where ever you go.
> JG
Nickname unavailable
he was born poor, his parents only had about a million in the 70s',
he considered it middle class.
Nickname unavailable
>
> Underestimating what we pay in taxes is a common error due to the fact
> that most people forget to calculate our *VERY HIGH* (by world
> standards) rates of property taxation.
>
> Yet, the US has more non-White
>
> > people then all those higher taxed places. Could be that non-Whites
> > cause lower taxes. Think?
>
> > So, about this John Galt thing; Are you leaving? Soon? Or are you
> > just another 'John Galt' hypocrit?
>
> You have evidently forgotten how the book ends. Get your mother to read
> it to you.
>
> JG
anny randy sci-fi full of sex for little boys to masturbate to, was
not reality.
Nickname unavailable
well said.
Nickname unavailable
only the government has the power to create money. and there are all
sorts of strings attached with its uses.
Nickname unavailable
liar.
Nickname unavailable
liar. taxes are enshrined in the constitution.
Nickname unavailable
liar,
K
> On Oct 9, 11:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service. Someone
>> might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
>> doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
>> to stop providing them.
>>
>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>
>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>
> that is not what the founders said, and the courts agree. the
> founders said we the people, to promote and provide for the general
> welfare, and here it is,
>
> here is the real truth,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
> The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief
> introductory statement
And that's all it is.
Once again, you lose.
K
Actually, that's not always true. Whether true or not, the government
doesn't create the value that money represents.
You truly are ignorant.
K
No. No one has a right to any good or service.
Wilson Woods
Rod Speed
Just another steaming turd dropped by yet another swarthy fool many many years ago.
Josh Rosenbluth
True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a representative,
constitutional democracy.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jim_Higgins
Psalm 14:1
Wayne
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hapg7f$s3p$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
The law does not in the strict sense define that there is a "right". The
problem is that people who want some special accomodation make up a
non-existent "right" and use that claim to pass legislation. That doesn't
mean that the "right" really exists.
Wilson Woods
So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's acceptable? If
everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday "your
day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron bars, is that
acceptable?
You don't seem to understand the nature of rights. Rights specify
things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not lawfully
do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it. Seizing value
you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights. We don't
need a welfare system or food stamps or nationalized health care in
order for unfortunate people to be cared for. None of that existed in
the 19th century, and no one starved to death. People voluntarily will
help those less fortunate; they always have.
m...@privacy.net
>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you, mine
>> mine mine mine.
>
>Right. Piss and moan all you like, but it doesn't change the *fact*
>that no one has a right to my effort.
Again.... I say to you
That NOTHING you have BELONGS to you
Did you create yourself? Did you create the talents
you have? Did you create the iron ore used to make the
steel in your car? Did you create those people who
mined that ore and had the skills to make it into a
car? Nope
EVERYTHING you use...... including even your own
body.... your on skills..... do NOT belong to you. Even
your kids don't belong to you!
Did you create the hot water you took a shower with
today? Nothing!
Beam Me Up Scotty
> RickMerrill wrote:
>> K wrote:
>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats,
>>> but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may
>>> subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>>>
>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you
>>> must pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>
>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>
>> been sick, then you might not understand that sickness makes you unhappy.
>>
>> You have a constitutional right to purchase health care.
>
> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to contract,
> and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
Everything you buy is a contract....
Rod Speed
Wrong, as always.
Cyrus Purvis
I guess he's never heard of Caveat Emptor? :)
Beam Me Up Scotty
Taxes on trade, not on the individual's labor.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
The gov't has already been overthrown, we're just gonna take it back.
Rod Speed
He's too stupid to know what it means.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Where is your "right" to force me to into your health care?
Try amendment 9, your rights don't supersede my rights.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Nothing scares a Socialist more than free people exercising their freedoms.
-Beam Me Up Scotty- 2009
Beam Me Up Scotty
Rod Speed
There is no verbal contract quite a bit of the time.
Wilson Woods
> Wilson Woods <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you, mine
>>> mine mine mine.
>> Right. Piss and moan all you like, but it doesn't change the *fact*
>> that no one has a right to my effort.
>
> Again.... I say to you
>
> That NOTHING you have BELONGS to you
And *again*, I tell you that you're full of shit and wrong. What I have
*does* belong to me. It's mine. I own it, and I get to decide how it's
used, or if it's used at all.
Michael Coburn
It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable". Until it is struck down it is
the law.
> If
> everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday "your
> day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron bars, is that
> acceptable?
It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable". Until it is struck down it is
the law.
> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights.
Right do not exist in "nature". Tell a bear about your "rights".
"Rights" are a totally human fabrication. Without sentience and society
there is no use for "rights".
> Rights specify
> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not lawfully
> do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
Nope. That is a rightarded appeal to majority rule to do away with
majority rule. If an overwhelming majority decide that individuals are
to be stripped of some internally justified capacity to thwart the good
of the whole of the society then that overwhelming majority will override
the individual "opinion" of what is "right".
> Seizing value
> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
> seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights.
Though most of what happens regarding this particular subject is screech
monkey dung, the definition of "rights" is a societal operation because
outside a society the concept of "rights" has no meaning. Again: Tell
the bear you have a "right" to that fish he has in his mouth, or that the
candy bars in your back pack are YOURS.
> We don't
> need a welfare system or food stamps or nationalized health care in
> order for unfortunate people to be cared for. None of that existed in
> the 19th century, and no one starved to death. People voluntarily will
> help those less fortunate; they always have.
In the 19th century those that did not like the social order moved west.
They could and did "live off the land" as there were "more trees than we
could ever use". What need had they of "rights"?
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Michael Coburn
Rights do not exist in "nature". Tell a bear about your "rights".
"Rights" are a totally human fabrication. Without sentience and society
there is no use for "rights".
If an overwhelming majority decide that individuals are to be stripped of
some internally justified capacity to thwart the good of the whole of the
society then that overwhelming majority will override the individual
"opinion" of what is "right". And therefore establish what is "right"
and the concept of "rights".
Wilson Woods wrote:
> Seizing value
> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
> seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights.
Though most of what happens regarding this particular subject is screech
monkey dung, the definition of "rights" is a societal operation because
outside a society the concept of "rights" has no meaning. Again: Tell
the bear you have a "right" to that fish he has in his mouth, or that the
candy bars in your back pack are YOURS.
In the 19th century those that did not like the social order moved west.
They could and did "live off the land" as there were "more trees than we
could ever use". What need had they of "rights"? They simply left the
society. "rights" (that are of any benefit whatsoever) are what the vast
universal majority say they are.
Michael Coburn
We have the right to protect ourselves from your ingrained stupidity and
the damage it causes us.
Michael Coburn
Unfortunately, we currently "buy" stuff for which we did not contract.
Ans when morons refuse to insure their bodies, we end up paying for that
negligence.
ne...@millions.com
And the recognition of the binding aspects of a verbal contract is
made stronger by corresponding evidense that such a verbal contract
was made.
DCI
Wilson Woods
Revolutions occur over such things. No law trumps moral rights.
>> If
>> everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday "your
>> day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron bars, is that
>> acceptable?
>
> It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable".
It does matter.
>
>> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights.
>
> Right do not exist in "nature".
Human rights exist in the mind of man.
>> Rights specify
>> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not lawfully
>> do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
>
> Nope.
Yep.
> That is a rightarded appeal to majority rule to do away with
> majority rule.
It's not.
> If an overwhelming majority decide that individuals are
> to be stripped of some internally justified capacity to thwart the good
> of the whole of the society
No such good.
>> Seizing value
>> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
>> seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights.
>
> Though most of what happens regarding this particular subject is screech
> monkey dung, the definition of "rights" is a societal operation
Irrelevant. "The law" also is a societal construct. One societal
construct must yield to another, and the law must yield to rights.
Beam Me Up Scotty
prosecuted for the civilians that Obama has killed in Afghanistan with
money he stole from my paycheck before I ever got the money.
Beam Me Up Scotty
That was the PRE-Obama America, *WE ARE ALL SOCIALIST NOW*
Beam Me Up Scotty
SO you think it impossible for a mute to enter into a verbal contract?
And burning a flag isn't free speech?
Cyrus Purvis
>
> >>>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you, mine
> >>>> mine mine mine.
> >>> Right. Piss and moan all you like, but it doesn't change the *fact*
> >>> that no one has a right to my effort.
>
> >> Again.... I say to you
>
> >> That NOTHING you have BELONGS to you
>
> > And *again*, I tell you that you're full of shit and wrong. What I have
> > *does* belong to me. It's mine. I own it, and I get to decide how it's
> > used, or if it's used at all.
>
And you have a black leader! Sure! Canada and the UK had women; but
never a black person!
How multicultural!
Rod Speed
Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
> And burning a flag isn't free speech?
Or that in spades.
Rod Speed
Nope, a half black one.
> Sure! Canada and the UK had women;
Britain never did.
> but never a black person!
America doesnt either!!
> How multicultural!
Josh Rosenbluth
So far, so good. Our system does overlay individual rights on top of
majority rule.
> Seizing value
> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
> seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights. We don't
> need a welfare system or food stamps or nationalized health care in
> order for unfortunate people to be cared for. None of that existed in
> the 19th century, and no one starved to death. People voluntarily will
> help those less fortunate; they always have.
And here, we part ways on both the law (I don't believe you have a
right to be free from taxation) and the policy (people do not
voluntarily provide health care, that's obvious from the empirical
evidence).
Josh Rosenbluth
Cyrus Purvis
And where do those rights come from?
The right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has more to
do with the well being of the people, and being healthy by having a
longer life span, lower infant mortality and affordable health care
should not be reserved for those who can afford it, and no one else.
When can US insurance companies provide that?
Let me know. I'll crack a bottle of bubbly.
Cyrus Purvis
A lot of wackjobs want to see the FDA demolished, because they're
Libertarian ideologues who think that the magic of the market should
decide what works and what is snake oil.
I say that we test foods and drugs on them, so it's cheaper for the
corporations. That way we could save a fortune on taxes that are
spent on the FDA.
I just don't think that there are many candidates.
Cyrus Purvis
You don't know about Dame Margaret Thatcher? Prime Minister?
She was one of Ronald Reagan's friends!
Ork
Oh! I get it! You're telling us that you like the idea of "Liberal
Trial Lawyers" who go up against corporations when "the little guy" is
getting fucked! And I'm confident that you support Tort laws, which
allow law suits against physicans who are accused of misconduct.
Yeah! Sure!
Roy Culley
<haq56p$1t9$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Jim_Higgins <gordi...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Roy Culley wrote:
>> <m3qvc5hip6ruj96j8...@4ax.com>,
>> no_...@void.nul writes:
>>> Only a fool says there is no God!
>>
>> Only a fool believes in a 'God' for which there is zero evidence and
>> based only on primitive myths.
>
> Psalm 14:1
Umtil you can show any evidence for your god you know where you can
stick your bible reference.
Ork
I burned a flag pin once. But it was a Canadian flag pin, and it
just happened to be attached to a Beatles record, when we had this big
bonfire in the south, back in the 1960's after John Lennon said "We're
bigger than Jesus".
Burning Beatles records was all the rage back in those days.
Rod Speed
Yes you do. All you have to do is stay out of the areas that are taxed.
Dont have a job, dont own any property, dont buy what is sales taxed.
> and the policy (people do not voluntarily provide health care,
Some do just that.
> that's obvious from the empirical evidence).
Like hell it is.
Rod Speed
>>>> Wilson Woods wrote
>>>>> m...@privacy.net wrote
>>>>>> Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw
>>>>>>>> you, mine mine mine mine.
>>>>>>> Right. Piss and moan all you like, but it doesn't change the
>>>>>>> *fact* that no one has a right to my effort.
>>>>>> Again.... I say to you
>>>>>> That NOTHING you have BELONGS to you
>>>>> And *again*, I tell you that you're full of shit and wrong.
>>>>> What I have *does* belong to me. It's mine. I own it, and
>>>>> I get to decide how it's used, or if it's used at all.
>>>> That was the PRE-Obama America, *WE ARE ALL SOCIALIST NOW*-
>>> And you have a black leader!
>> Nope, a half black one.
>>> Sure! Canada and the UK had women;
>> Britain never did.
> You don't know about Dame Margaret Thatcher? Prime Minister?
Thats not a woman, stupid.
And she's a Baroness, not a Dame.
And a drunk.
> She was one of Ronald Reagan's friends!
Ronny's problem.
Mark Anderson
> I burned a flag pin once. But it was a Canadian flag pin, and it just
> happened to be attached to a Beatles record, when we had this big
> bonfire in the south, back in the 1960's after John Lennon said "We're
> bigger than Jesus".
>
> Burning Beatles records was all the rage back in those days.
I'm sure Jesus is proud of you.
Wilson Woods
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:59:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>> K wrote:
>>> RickMerrill wrote:
>>>> K wrote:
>>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
>>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats,
>>>>> but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may
>>>>> subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you
>>>>> must pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare
>>>>> poorly.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>> You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've never
>>>> been sick, then you might not understand that sickness makes you
>>>> unhappy.
>>>>
>>>> You have a constitutional right to purchase health care.
>>> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to contract,
>>> and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
>> Everything you buy is a contract....
>
> Unfortunately, we currently "buy" stuff for which we did not contract.
You don't, of course, which is why you had to put quotes around buy.
Wilson Woods
That's false. The rights come *first*; majority rule is merely a form
of government.
>> Seizing value
>> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
>> seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights. We don't
>> need a welfare system or food stamps or nationalized health care in
>> order for unfortunate people to be cared for. None of that existed in
>> the 19th century, and no one starved to death. People voluntarily will
>> help those less fortunate; they always have.
>
> And here, we part ways on both the law (I don't believe you have a
> right to be free from taxation)
You have a right to be free from the seizure of your property merely to
give it to others. Government may tax to achieve the legitimate
functions of government: police, national defense, courts, and
operation of the departments of government. Government may not
legitimately tax you in order to hand the money over to others. That's
called looting.
> and the policy (people do not
> voluntarily provide health care,
That's a lie. Doctors traditionally gave away quite a lot of medical
care without compensation. It might not have been liver transplants or
open heart surgery, but you don't have a right to those anyway. If
you're the beneficiary of others' generosity, you don't have any power
to dictate the extent of it.
Wilson Woods
I know where they *DON'T* come from: they are not granted or given by
the state.
> The right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has more to
> do with the well being of the people, and being healthy by having a
> longer life span, lower infant mortality and affordable health care
> should not be reserved for those who can afford it, and no one else.
Yes, of course it should be reserved to those who can afford it.
John Q Public
Your a fucking idiot, your socialist policies you love are what got us
to this point, the free market
is the only solution, its not perfect and it doesn't provide your so
called social justice but in the
end it always be more efficient and fair than any other system
Michael Coburn
The typical spittle and stupidity from the "free market" religious morons.
Michael Coburn
>> And when morons refuse to insure their bodies, we end up paying for
>> that negligence.
>>
> That was a theft, I never agreed to what they forced on me. I can't be
> prosecuted for the civilians that Obama has killed in Afghanistan with
> money he stole from my paycheck before I ever got the money.
Whenever the rightarded get their assess handed to them they muddy the
water and/or change the subject.
mg
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > K wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>
> >>>> missussex wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> screen
> >>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't
> >>>>>>>> have a
> >>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services,
> >>>>>>>> you must
> >>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
> >>>>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare
> >>>>>>>> poorly.
> >>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>
> >>>>> and firefighting services either.
>
> >>>> That's right.
>
> >>> liar.
>
> >> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>
> > True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
> > services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a representative,
> > constitutional democracy.
>
> So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
> everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday "your
> day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron bars, is that
> acceptable?
>
> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not lawfully
> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
> need a welfare system or food stamps or nationalized health care in
> order for unfortunate people to be cared for. None of that existed in
> the 19th century, and no one starved to death. People voluntarily will
> help those less fortunate; they always have.
Most everyone undoubtedly has their own personal opinion of what their
"rights" are, or ought to be. If you were to ask 10 people, you might
get 10 different opinions depending on where they're at on the
political spectrum and their religious or moral beliefs. That's what a
democracy and our constitution are all about and if you want to
fantasize about some right that's not in the constitution and most of
your fellow citizens disagree with you, you're out of luck.
Michael Coburn
Of course _I_ in particular do not have to buy your free medical care
because I do not have private sector "for profit" medical insurance. But
the vast majority with families must pay the rip off insurance companies
their "protection money" or, in the event that anyone in the family
incurs a serious medical problem, all assets will be wiped out. Hence,
the typical person pays for the care of the indigent (which may be
acceptable so long as the rich pay it too), but the free riders are also
supported.
I also don't have to "pursue happiness" or pay my electric bill either.
Always Right
I never saw a Ringo album that wasn't worth burning.
I really hated "Goodnight Vienna", and some of
George's stuff was simply awful until the Wilbury's.
Michael Coburn
> Michael Coburn wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:25:39 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> K wrote:
>>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> missussex wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>>>>>>> screen
>>>>>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't
>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services,
>>>>>>>>>>> you must
>>>>>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>>>>>>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll
>>>>>>>>>>> fare poorly.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law
>>>>>>>> enforcement, and firefighting services either.
>>>>>>> That's right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>>>> True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
>>>> services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a
>>>> representative, constitutional democracy.
>>> So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
>>> families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's acceptable?
>>
>> It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable". Until it is struck down it is
>> the law.
>
> Revolutions occur over such things. No law trumps moral rights.
Then that would be "struck down", wouldn't it??????
>>> If
>>> everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday
>>> "your day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron bars,
>>> is that acceptable?
>>
>> It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable".
>
> It does matter.
Nice editing job, lying pig. Just take it out of context and use it to
lie.
>>> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights.
>>
>> Right do not exist in "nature".
>
> Human rights exist in the mind of man.
Thank you for acknowledging reality. How monumental.
>>> Rights specify
>>> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not lawfully
>>> do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Yep.
>
>> That is a rightarded appeal to majority rule to do away with majority
>> rule.
>
> It's not.
Yes.. It is. If you're version of "rights" disagrees with the vast
majority then your version of "rights" is inoperable accept as a an
internalized religious view. You can sit in a jail cell believing you
have the right to rape chickens until you die. And so long as you
believe such is your "right" then it will be so. The "right" will do you
no good and when you die the "right" will die with you. But it _WILL_ be
your inalienable right until death do you part.
> > If an overwhelming majority decide that individuals are
>> to be stripped of some internally justified capacity to thwart the good
>> of the whole of the society
>
> No such good.
That is your opinion, moron. It is like your version of "rights". And
again you have edited what I have said in order to take it out of context
and lie like a typical rightarded lying pig. When I delete stuff I note
that I did so.
>>> Seizing value
>>> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to
>>> be seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights.
>>
>> Though most of what happens regarding this particular subject is
>> screech monkey dung, the definition of "rights" is a societal operation
>
> Irrelevant. "The law" also is a societal construct. One societal
> construct must yield to another, and the law must yield to rights.
The law typically DOES yield to "rights". We simply come back to the
problem YOUR internalized religious beliefs concerning a fixed set of
"rights" that SERVE _YOU_ and your rightarded pals in spite of the
society as a whole.
>>> We don't
>>> need a welfare system or food stamps or nationalized health care in
>>> order for unfortunate people to be cared for. None of that existed in
>>> the 19th century, and no one starved to death. People voluntarily
>>> will help those less fortunate; they always have.
--
Josh Rosenbluth
OK. Majority rule is overlayed on rights.
>>> Seizing value
>>> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
>>> seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights. We don't
>>> need a welfare system or food stamps or nationalized health care in
>>> order for unfortunate people to be cared for. None of that existed in
>>> the 19th century, and no one starved to death. People voluntarily will
>>> help those less fortunate; they always have.
>>
>>
>> And here, we part ways on both the law (I don't believe you have a
>> right to be free from taxation)
>
>
> You have a right to be free from the seizure of your property merely to
> give it to others. Government may tax to achieve the legitimate
> functions of government: police, national defense, courts, and
> operation of the departments of government. Government may not
> legitimately tax you in order to hand the money over to others. That's
> called looting.
You and I have different views about the legitimate functions of
government. I would include health care for all in those functions (at
the option of the majority). I have no doubt the courts would agree
with me.
>> and the policy (people do not
>> voluntarily provide health care,
>
>
> That's a lie. Doctors traditionally gave away quite a lot of medical
> care without compensation. It might not have been liver transplants or
> open heart surgery, but you don't have a right to those anyway. If
> you're the beneficiary of others' generosity, you don't have any power
> to dictate the extent of it.
I guess I was mistaken about the millions of people with inadequate
health care in the USA.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
>
>> The right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has more to
>> do with the well being of the people, and being healthy by having a
>> longer life span, lower infant mortality and affordable health care
>> should not be reserved for those who can afford it, and no one else.
>
>
> Yes, of course it should be reserved to those who can afford it.
Did you just say longer life spans and lower infant mortality should be
reserved to those who can afford it? That crazy-ass Congressman who
accused Republicans of wanting the poor to die quickly might have told
the truth had he been speaking about you.
Josh Rosenbluth
Joe
> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service. Someone
> might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
> doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
> to stop providing them.
>
> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>
> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
I believe health care is a right just as every child has a right to an
education. These are not luxuries, but necessities.
Michael Coburn
Only those "rights" enforced by "the state" are of any economic or social
benefit. "The state" in modern time and in any proper "republican form
of government", should represent the thoughtful deliberations of the
society. Ergo, "rights" of social and economic value are "recognized"
and "enforced" by the society through "the state". That certain of these
"rights" are agreed to be sacrosanct from a simple majority and therefore
written into a Constitution that can only be changed by agreement of a
super majority attests to the fact that "rights" are agreements between
the sentient beings of a society and not an inviolate religious dogma.
>> The right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has more to
>> do with the well being of the people, and being healthy by having a
>> longer life span, lower infant mortality and affordable health care
>> should not be reserved for those who can afford it, and no one else.
>
> Yes, of course it should be reserved to those who can afford it.
Self evident truths are a matter of belief. Truths concerning the rules
of society are only "self evident" to those who believe them to be so.
Still, the formation of a sovereign state is normally based on the shared
opinions concerning self evident truth. Did Americans believe as the
words of the Declaration of Independence proclaimed? Do Americans
believe these doctrines today?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed".
Those of us who understand the English language do not have a problem
parsing this passage from the DCI. The ROOT proposition is that all are
created equal with regard to "life, liberty, and pursuit". Many will
legitimately argue that "pursuit" is redundant in that "liberty" already
encompasses "pursuit". And most are capable of understanding that the
reason for the existence of "the state" is t "secure these rights" as
directed by the people themselves.
To than say that these "rights" are only available to those who can
afford it seems to be the position of the latter day Republican fascist
party. If all are created equal regarding the right to life then the
right to medical care is also equal. So to the right to food. We have
long since passed the point where people are allowed to starve in this
country. They may be allowed to freeze to death under a bridge, but the
food banks and the shelters and the food stamps prevent starvation. IN
1986 the Republican government created the EMTALA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMTALA
The Democrats, since that time, have been trying to figure out how to pay
for it.
Nickname unavailable
> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 1:44 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> >>>> In some few cases - not many - I created the things I own myself. I
> >>>> have a right to them; no one else has any right to them.
> >>>> No one has a right to my effort.
> >>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you, mine
> >>> mine mine mine.
> >>> of sharing.
> >> You think taxation is "sharing"?
>
> >> Please. The issue has more moving parts than that.
>
> >> JG
>
> > I am waiting for all you John Galts to shit or get off the pot.
>
> Wait all you like. Are you doing to answer the question? Is taxation, to
> you "sharing?"
>
> Take
>
> > to 'superior' minds and riches and move to some 'effing island like
> > you 'threaten' to.
>
> Many already have, many more probably will. Are you going to answer the
> question?
>
> The sooner you leave the better for the rest of
>
> > Americans.
>
> I *am* an American, and have as many votes as you do. (OK, I guess
> you're not going to answer the question.)
>
>
>
> > So when you leaving?
>
> My preference is to beat you looters' heads into the ground. You never
> succeed for long, since your economic policies are unsustainable, and
> the electorate always comes to their senses.
>
> This time, it looks like a very short learning curve.
>
> JG
i am sure that the founders would look at a asshole as you, as a
tory, and would have shown you to the door.
this of course will mean nothing to a idiot, but the rest of us will
understand its truths, and how it applies to america, today.
you can see paines hand in the preamble, and constitution.
here is one for that stupid selfish fucker galt,
"In Agrarian Justice, he returned to the question of rights and social
justice. Civilization, he argued, should not throw people into a worse
condition than they would be in if they were uncivilized, and yet in
Europe many people were poorer than American Indians. The Earth had
been given by God as common property to all men, but the system of
land ownership meant that only some could use it. Paine argued that
they should compensate the others by paying a ground rent to society.
Also, he argued that no-one could produce riches without the support
of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society. This would provide funds for a social program that
included education, pensions, unemployment benefits, and maternity
benefits."
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_dec2000.htm
Philosopher of the Month
December 2000 - Thomas Paine
Robin Harwood
The great and glorious Thomas Paine was a political theorist who tried
to put his theories into action. His aim was to free human beings from
oppressive government, oppressive religions, and oppressive poverty.
His method was to appeal to reason, so that all people could recognise
truth and justice. His achievements were spectacular. Paine invented
America, took part in the French Revolution, and inspired
revolutionary movements in Britain. The American Revolution was a
success, the French revolution was a disaster, and the British
Revolution never happened. Even so, Paine's ideas of democracy and
social welfare have been at least partly realized not only in these
countries, but in many other countries as well.
He was born in England, but his life there was difficult, and on
Benjamin Franklin's advice, he emigrated to the New World. Paine
arrived in Philadelphia in 1774, and took a job as editor for the
Pennsylvania Magazine. One of his first essays was a call for the
abolition of slavery. Inspired by the first moves of the American
Revolution, he wrote the pamphlet Common Sense (1776), in which he
argued that independence was both morally justified and the only
practical option for the American Colonies. The book was massively
influential, and converted many waverers, including Thomas Jefferson
and George Washington, to the idea of the United States of America
(Paine coined the name) as an independent nation.
After the War of Independence was over, he went to France, and then to
England, where he wrote The Rights of Man. Paine's message was clear
and powerful.
All individual human beings, he argued, are created with equal rights.
However, human beings do not live as isolated individuals, but as
members of society. In society we flourish fully, both because we can
enjoy the company of other people, and from being able to gain help
and support from each other. Nonetheless, human beings are not perfect
and so sometimes infringe each other's rights. As individuals we may
not have the power to exercise some of our rights, such as the right
to protect ourselves. Thus, we create the state to protect those
rights, and the individual's natural right is transformed into a civil
right of protection. Also, as members of the state, we gain additional
rights, such as the right to vote, and the right to run for office.
The only legitimate form of state is a democratic republic. Hereditary
monarchy is morally illegitimate, since it denies the current
generation the right to choose their own leaders.
Of course, Paine held that we also have duties. We have a duty to
protect the rights of our fellow citizens, and to maintain society,
but we also have to improve, enrich, and benefit society. This
includes the duty to eliminate poverty as much as we can. Paine
proposed a system of welfare to do just this. This welfare was not
charity, but a civil right.
The popularity of the book frightened the British Government. Paine
was outlawed for treason, and he fled to France. The British
revolutionary movements were squashed.
The French elected Paine to a seat in the National Convention. During
the Terror he was imprisoned and came close to being executed. After
his release, he took little active part in French politics, and
concentrated mostly on writing, particularly on religion and
economics. He produced The Age of Reason, arguing for Deism, and
against atheism and Christianity. He demonstrated that Christian
theology was unreasonable, and the doctrine of redemption was immoral.
He also showed that the Bible cannot be divine revelation, and
condemned it for its portrayal of God as cruel and vindictive.
In Agrarian Justice, he returned to the question of rights and social
justice. Civilization, he argued, should not throw people into a worse
condition than they would be in if they were uncivilized, and yet in
Europe many people were poorer than American Indians. The Earth had
been given by God as common property to all men, but the system of
land ownership meant that only some could use it. Paine argued that
they should compensate the others by paying a ground rent to society.
Also, he argued that no-one could produce riches without the support
of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society. This would provide funds for a social program that
included education, pensions, unemployment benefits, and maternity
benefits.
When Paine finally returned to America in 1802, his writings on
religion had made him an unpopular figure. Nonetheless, Paine did yet
another great service to his ungrateful country, in proposing that the
U.S.A. buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon. Jefferson took
Paine's advice, and thus more than doubled the size of the United
States.
Paine carried on writing to the end, but his old age was miserable,
and he died in obscurity. Officialdom has preferred to ignore him,
even when carrying out his proposals, and his name is seldom on the
lists of great men, and yet many of his ideas are common currency now.
However, much of the world is still not completely free from political
oppression, organized religion, and poverty. We can still learn from
him.
Suggested reading
Thomas Paine, A. J. Ayer, (Secker and Warburg)
The
Thomas Paine Reader, ed. Michael Foot and Isaac Kramnick (Penguin)
Tom
Paine: a political life, John Keane, (Little, Brown and Company)
Geopinion
>
> - Show quoted text -
The free market assumes several things: that everyone has sufficient
information to make a choice, that choices are not made under duress,
and that choices are available. It also assumes that the consumer has
the power to simply not make a choice at all - do without - as a way
of forcing the market to respond.
No one knows which physicians or hospitals provide the best care for
the least cost. That information is not available anywhere, so the
free market provides no choices for the health-care consumer.
No one can afford to take the time and perform the research needed to
determine where to get the most effective treatment for the least cost
in the shadow of a potentially life-threatening illness. So the free
market has no answers in that situation.
Rural areas and small towns may have only one source for health care,
so there are no choices to be made among competing providers because
there are no competing providers. The free market offers no solutions
there.
The same limits exist with regard to insurers; most people have no
choice but must use the insurer - and the participating physicians/
hospitals - their employer selects. Those without employer-provided
health care likewise have very limited choices and usually must simply
obtain coverage they can afford. So, the free market hasn't performed
for those people, either.
And people in need of health care aren't really in a position to
simply say, "Forget it, I'll go without," because sometimes that
decision means death or permanent disability for oneself or one's
child or spouse or parent. So, the consumer cannot influence the
market by rejecting the available choices.
Free-market zealots think the market is a one-size-fits-all solution
to everything - it's not. It works for commerce, only, and then only
for things that aren't vital to life.
MLW
Wilson Woods
No. That's just infantile swearing.
Wilson Woods
No editing.
>>>> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights.
>>> Right do not exist in "nature".
>> Human rights exist in the mind of man.
>
> Thank you for acknowledging reality. How monumental.
>
>>>> Rights specify
>>>> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not lawfully
>>>> do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
>>> Nope.
>> Yep.
>>
>>> That is a rightarded appeal to majority rule to do away with majority
>>> rule.
>> It's not.
>
> Yes.. It is.
It's not.
>> > If an overwhelming majority decide that individuals are
>>> to be stripped of some internally justified capacity to thwart the good
>>> of the whole of the society
>> No such good.
>
> That is your opinion,
No, it's a fact. "Society" is not an organic entity. It doesn't have a
welfare. There can be no "good of the society". There can only be
things that are good for people.
>>>> Seizing value
>>>> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to
>>>> be seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights.
>>> Though most of what happens regarding this particular subject is
>>> screech monkey dung, the definition of "rights" is a societal operation
>> Irrelevant. "The law" also is a societal construct. One societal
>> construct must yield to another, and the law must yield to rights.
>
> The law typically DOES yield to "rights".
So, since it is my right to control the use of my effort, the law cannot
dispossess me of it.
Wilson Woods
You are wrong. That's stealing wealth from people to give it to others
- not a legitimate function of government.
>>> and the policy (people do not
>>> voluntarily provide health care,
>>
>>
>> That's a lie. Doctors traditionally gave away quite a lot of medical
>> care without compensation. It might not have been liver transplants
>> or open heart surgery, but you don't have a right to those anyway. If
>> you're the beneficiary of others' generosity, you don't have any power
>> to dictate the extent of it.
>
> I guess I was mistaken about the millions of people with inadequate
> health care in the USA.
You're mistaken about quite a lot.