A health care question...

The Doctor wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The Doctor wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The Doctor wrote: ^ I think because government uses some of its power to help people in general, in contrast to the every man for himself attitude that some prefer.  Apparently greed when used to help people in general = bad.  Greed when used to further your own selfish interests = good.  I like how the translation goes from me saying that government should not steal and coerce to help people translates to me saying people should not be helped.  You know you are a human being with moral obligations. You can't just hand them over to the government and say "People need to be helped. Damn those conservatives for stopping that."  Put out the effort, put out the money, and help people. Don't offer up other people's freedom to help the needy and think you're some great person for that. The government is not the sole provider of charity. Do something yourself.   Ok.  Now I'm curious.  What of those people who do not live up to their moral obligations as a human being to help others, especially when they have the means to do so?  Should those of us in the middle of the social ladder shoulder all of the burden to help our fellow man, while those at the top of the ladder continue to pile up the cash by taking advantage of those at the bottom?    New flash. Not all rich people are rich because they exploit. Get over it. I understand you're mad that you're not rich. I'm also mad about it, but that doesn't make everyone with money evil. Stop being so childish.  What of those people? Those people are bad people then. End of the story. You can't force people to help others. That's no more moral than letting people suffer.    Actually, yes you can, and we do to some extent (certainly not enough for my liking though).  And yes it is more moral than letting people suffer.  End of story.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Because people in government only gain power by loss of other people's liberty. This is not a desireable situation.  The greed involved in the private sector incourages comapnies to maximize profit which is good for the consumer.  I'm not saying anything about the individual people. Its just the structure that is faulty. Although who can really say that politicians aren't slimier than the average. What is faulty about the structure? As I said power for those in government comes at the expense of someone else's liberty.  Profit can also come at the expense of someone else's liberty, I know you are uncomfortable with me bringing up slavery and I can see why because it is a prime example of worst case scenario in a profit driven society. But I'm all for protecting rights above all else so why would that even be brought up? Clearly rights are violated.

Then you don't believe in a purely market driven society, you are already compromising that 'ideal' and calling for government regulation and intervention.

Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Because people in government only gain power by loss of other people's liberty. This is not a desireable situation.  The greed involved in the private sector incourages comapnies to maximize profit which is good for the consumer.  I'm not saying anything about the individual people. Its just the structure that is faulty. Although who can really say that politicians aren't slimier than the average. What is faulty about the structure? As I said power for those in government comes at the expense of someone else's liberty.  Profit can also come at the expense of someone else's liberty, I know you are uncomfortable with me bringing up slavery and I can see why because it is a prime example of worst case scenario in a profit driven society. But I'm all for protecting rights above all else so why would that even be brought up? Clearly rights are violated. Then you don't believe in a purely market driven society, you are already compromising that 'ideal' and calling for government regulation and intervention.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Because people in government only gain power by loss of other people's liberty. This is not a desireable situation.  The greed involved in the private sector incourages comapnies to maximize profit which is good for the consumer.  I'm not saying anything about the individual people. Its just the structure that is faulty. Although who can really say that politicians aren't slimier than the average. What is faulty about the structure? As I said power for those in government comes at the expense of someone else's liberty.  Profit can also come at the expense of someone else's liberty, I know you are uncomfortable with me bringing up slavery and I can see why because it is a prime example of worst case scenario in a profit driven society. But I'm all for protecting rights above all else so why would that even be brought up? Clearly rights are violated. Then you don't believe in a purely market driven society, you are already compromising that 'ideal' and calling for government regulation and intervention. I believe the government should exist to enforce contracts and ensure that the rights of citizens are kept sacred. I've repeated time and time again that I'm no anarchist. I've said many times that the government's job is to protect rights. Good job you've discovered something I've openly admitted.

'Rights' is a very vague term, briefly, what are those rights?

Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Because people in government only gain power by loss of other people's liberty. This is not a desireable situation.  The greed involved in the private sector incourages comapnies to maximize profit which is good for the consumer.  I'm not saying anything about the individual people. Its just the structure that is faulty. Although who can really say that politicians aren't slimier than the average. What is faulty about the structure? As I said power for those in government comes at the expense of someone else's liberty.  Profit can also come at the expense of someone else's liberty, I know you are uncomfortable with me bringing up slavery and I can see why because it is a prime example of worst case scenario in a profit driven society. But I'm all for protecting rights above all else so why would that even be brought up? Clearly rights are violated. Then you don't believe in a purely market driven society, you are already compromising that 'ideal' and calling for government regulation and intervention. I believe the government should exist to enforce contracts and ensure that the rights of citizens are kept sacred. I've repeated time and time again that I'm no anarchist. I've said many times that the government's job is to protect rights. Good job you've discovered something I've openly admitted.  'Rights' is a very vague term, briefly, what are those rights?

Sure I do. I'm pretty sure you do too. That's why theft is wrong.

The Doctor wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Because people in government only gain power by loss of other people's liberty. This is not a desireable situation.  The greed involved in the private sector incourages comapnies to maximize profit which is good for the consumer.  I'm not saying anything about the individual people. Its just the structure that is faulty. Although who can really say that politicians aren't slimier than the average. What is faulty about the structure? As I said power for those in government comes at the expense of someone else's liberty.  Profit can also come at the expense of someone else's liberty, I know you are uncomfortable with me bringing up slavery and I can see why because it is a prime example of worst case scenario in a profit driven society. But I'm all for protecting rights above all else so why would that even be brought up? Clearly rights are violated. Then you don't believe in a purely market driven society, you are already compromising that 'ideal' and calling for government regulation and intervention. I believe the government should exist to enforce contracts and ensure that the rights of citizens are kept sacred. I've repeated time and time again that I'm no anarchist. I've said many times that the government's job is to protect rights. Good job you've discovered something I've openly admitted.  'Rights' is a very vague term, briefly, what are those rights? To live, be free, own property.   Ok.  Since we at least can agree that taxes are a part of the social contract, but may disagree on what the common good is, I will continue.  For awhile Pat, it didn't sound like you understood that basic concept.  Glad that you do.    Bringing this back around to the topic at hand.  So how far does the right to live go?  Does the cancer patient who has not enough money to pay for treatment give up his right to live, or does society have the obligation to provide the necessary treatment to ensure that his right to live is not abrogated?

So then there is no positive right to life, only a negative right to life.  I submit that this is no right at all, as it means that only those who can afford it have the absolute right to live.  And obviously you put the right to live behind those of the right to own property.  Because a person's life is not worth infringing the right of someone to horde their property.   Sorry, but that's just wrong man.  No amount of property is worth a person's life. 

jammun wrote: Stepping back into the thread here.  There's a guy on death row here in my state desperately in need of a some sort of organ transplant, or he will die.  The state's trying to make sure that transplant happens, so that they can kill him a while down the road.

The government giveth and the government taketh away buahahahaha

Actually, that's the trouble with written laws, elected officials (ie the 'government' buhahahaha) are bound to follow them or they can be legally expelled from office and can no longer partake in the grand conspiracy to take away all of our liberties.

What happened there is they can't kill him till he has his fair due process by law, and rightfully so, in the meantime, they have to keep him alive because they are bound to by law.

The Doctor wrote: So then there is no positive right to life, only a negative right to life.  I submit that this is no right at all, as it means that only those who can afford it have the absolute right to live.  And obviously you put the right to live behind those of the right to own property.  Because a person's life is not worth infringing the right of someone to horde their property.   Sorry, but that's just wrong man.  No amount of property is worth a person's life.