- This topic has 1,015 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
KSMountain.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 21, 2009 at 10:06 AM #496789December 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM #495929
sdduuuude
Participant[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right.[/quote]
I would add to this “anything that costs money or takes someone’s time can’t be a right.”
For example – I don’t have the right to a daily massage, which costs the masseuse no money.
People just don’t seem to understand this basic concept – that as soon as you say “everyone has a right to x” that you are actually taking away inalienable rights from the whole of society. Providing health care to all is, in effect, unconstitutional, as I see it.
Providing health care to all is a lovely thought, and surely done with good intent, but also done out of ignorance and at the expense of freedom.
People misunderstand free markets for this exact reason. Free markets are not unregulated markets where everyone is free to do whatever they want.
Free markets are markets where you are free from others infringing on your property rights and personal freedom.
Those personal freedoms have to take precedence.
December 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM #496083Participant[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right.[/quote]
I would add to this “anything that costs money or takes someone’s time can’t be a right.”
For example – I don’t have the right to a daily massage, which costs the masseuse no money.
People just don’t seem to understand this basic concept – that as soon as you say “everyone has a right to x” that you are actually taking away inalienable rights from the whole of society. Providing health care to all is, in effect, unconstitutional, as I see it.
Providing health care to all is a lovely thought, and surely done with good intent, but also done out of ignorance and at the expense of freedom.
People misunderstand free markets for this exact reason. Free markets are not unregulated markets where everyone is free to do whatever they want.
Free markets are markets where you are free from others infringing on your property rights and personal freedom.
Those personal freedoms have to take precedence.
December 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM #496464Participant[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right.[/quote]
I would add to this “anything that costs money or takes someone’s time can’t be a right.”
For example – I don’t have the right to a daily massage, which costs the masseuse no money.
People just don’t seem to understand this basic concept – that as soon as you say “everyone has a right to x” that you are actually taking away inalienable rights from the whole of society. Providing health care to all is, in effect, unconstitutional, as I see it.
Providing health care to all is a lovely thought, and surely done with good intent, but also done out of ignorance and at the expense of freedom.
People misunderstand free markets for this exact reason. Free markets are not unregulated markets where everyone is free to do whatever they want.
Free markets are markets where you are free from others infringing on your property rights and personal freedom.
Those personal freedoms have to take precedence.
December 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM #496553Participant[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right.[/quote]
I would add to this “anything that costs money or takes someone’s time can’t be a right.”
For example – I don’t have the right to a daily massage, which costs the masseuse no money.
People just don’t seem to understand this basic concept – that as soon as you say “everyone has a right to x” that you are actually taking away inalienable rights from the whole of society. Providing health care to all is, in effect, unconstitutional, as I see it.
Providing health care to all is a lovely thought, and surely done with good intent, but also done out of ignorance and at the expense of freedom.
People misunderstand free markets for this exact reason. Free markets are not unregulated markets where everyone is free to do whatever they want.
Free markets are markets where you are free from others infringing on your property rights and personal freedom.
Those personal freedoms have to take precedence.
December 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM #496794Participant[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right.[/quote]
I would add to this “anything that costs money or takes someone’s time can’t be a right.”
For example – I don’t have the right to a daily massage, which costs the masseuse no money.
People just don’t seem to understand this basic concept – that as soon as you say “everyone has a right to x” that you are actually taking away inalienable rights from the whole of society. Providing health care to all is, in effect, unconstitutional, as I see it.
Providing health care to all is a lovely thought, and surely done with good intent, but also done out of ignorance and at the expense of freedom.
People misunderstand free markets for this exact reason. Free markets are not unregulated markets where everyone is free to do whatever they want.
Free markets are markets where you are free from others infringing on your property rights and personal freedom.
Those personal freedoms have to take precedence.
December 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM #49593434f3f3f
ParticipantOMG! Who’s going to listen to a judge who is a libertarian and named after a pizza.
Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so. It already is a right in the US, if you are poor, or old and can’t afford it. Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. So the question then becomes should that right be extended to more, or everyone. But first you need to determine whether you mean a legal right, or a moral duty? In my view, a moral duty is a better fit and is less complicated, as it implies as a society, we all have a duty to care for each other, and ultimately it doesn’t matter whether a private insurer is the treasurer, or the government treasury. What does matter is cost, and what has been very apparent is that when you compare cost management around the world, the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them. There is no argument here. The tax argument is also completely redundant. If you substitute health insurance premiums for tax, it comes out the same, or even worse if you uses today’s high premiums. To vote against this bill would be irresponsible, and be cutting off your nose to spite your face. As with all these important bills, the missing ingredient is always education.
December 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM #496088ParticipantOMG! Who’s going to listen to a judge who is a libertarian and named after a pizza.
Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so. It already is a right in the US, if you are poor, or old and can’t afford it. Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. So the question then becomes should that right be extended to more, or everyone. But first you need to determine whether you mean a legal right, or a moral duty? In my view, a moral duty is a better fit and is less complicated, as it implies as a society, we all have a duty to care for each other, and ultimately it doesn’t matter whether a private insurer is the treasurer, or the government treasury. What does matter is cost, and what has been very apparent is that when you compare cost management around the world, the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them. There is no argument here. The tax argument is also completely redundant. If you substitute health insurance premiums for tax, it comes out the same, or even worse if you uses today’s high premiums. To vote against this bill would be irresponsible, and be cutting off your nose to spite your face. As with all these important bills, the missing ingredient is always education.
December 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM #496469ParticipantOMG! Who’s going to listen to a judge who is a libertarian and named after a pizza.
Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so. It already is a right in the US, if you are poor, or old and can’t afford it. Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. So the question then becomes should that right be extended to more, or everyone. But first you need to determine whether you mean a legal right, or a moral duty? In my view, a moral duty is a better fit and is less complicated, as it implies as a society, we all have a duty to care for each other, and ultimately it doesn’t matter whether a private insurer is the treasurer, or the government treasury. What does matter is cost, and what has been very apparent is that when you compare cost management around the world, the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them. There is no argument here. The tax argument is also completely redundant. If you substitute health insurance premiums for tax, it comes out the same, or even worse if you uses today’s high premiums. To vote against this bill would be irresponsible, and be cutting off your nose to spite your face. As with all these important bills, the missing ingredient is always education.
December 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM #496558ParticipantOMG! Who’s going to listen to a judge who is a libertarian and named after a pizza.
Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so. It already is a right in the US, if you are poor, or old and can’t afford it. Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. So the question then becomes should that right be extended to more, or everyone. But first you need to determine whether you mean a legal right, or a moral duty? In my view, a moral duty is a better fit and is less complicated, as it implies as a society, we all have a duty to care for each other, and ultimately it doesn’t matter whether a private insurer is the treasurer, or the government treasury. What does matter is cost, and what has been very apparent is that when you compare cost management around the world, the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them. There is no argument here. The tax argument is also completely redundant. If you substitute health insurance premiums for tax, it comes out the same, or even worse if you uses today’s high premiums. To vote against this bill would be irresponsible, and be cutting off your nose to spite your face. As with all these important bills, the missing ingredient is always education.
December 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM #496799ParticipantOMG! Who’s going to listen to a judge who is a libertarian and named after a pizza.
Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so. It already is a right in the US, if you are poor, or old and can’t afford it. Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. So the question then becomes should that right be extended to more, or everyone. But first you need to determine whether you mean a legal right, or a moral duty? In my view, a moral duty is a better fit and is less complicated, as it implies as a society, we all have a duty to care for each other, and ultimately it doesn’t matter whether a private insurer is the treasurer, or the government treasury. What does matter is cost, and what has been very apparent is that when you compare cost management around the world, the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them. There is no argument here. The tax argument is also completely redundant. If you substitute health insurance premiums for tax, it comes out the same, or even worse if you uses today’s high premiums. To vote against this bill would be irresponsible, and be cutting off your nose to spite your face. As with all these important bills, the missing ingredient is always education.
December 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM #495944Participant[quote=qwerty007]Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. [/quote]
That makes no sense.
If someone decides to kill someone, that doesn’t mean they didn’t have the right to live.[quote=qwerty007]Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so.[/quote]
Not a bad point but off the mark a bit. You might say “Health care is a right if enough of the population voluntarily decide to fund it.” The key word being “voluntarily”
[quote=qwerty007]the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them[/quote]
Likely, the strong arm of the govt is the reason costs are so high in the first place.
Your comments about “moral duty” make sense, but punishing people for not upholding their moral duty is unethical as your morals and theirs are different. Lots of republicans feel it is society’s moral duty to be not gay, for example.
December 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM #496098Participant[quote=qwerty007]Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. [/quote]
That makes no sense.
If someone decides to kill someone, that doesn’t mean they didn’t have the right to live.[quote=qwerty007]Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so.[/quote]
Not a bad point but off the mark a bit. You might say “Health care is a right if enough of the population voluntarily decide to fund it.” The key word being “voluntarily”
[quote=qwerty007]the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them[/quote]
Likely, the strong arm of the govt is the reason costs are so high in the first place.
Your comments about “moral duty” make sense, but punishing people for not upholding their moral duty is unethical as your morals and theirs are different. Lots of republicans feel it is society’s moral duty to be not gay, for example.
December 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM #496479Participant[quote=qwerty007]Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. [/quote]
That makes no sense.
If someone decides to kill someone, that doesn’t mean they didn’t have the right to live.[quote=qwerty007]Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so.[/quote]
Not a bad point but off the mark a bit. You might say “Health care is a right if enough of the population voluntarily decide to fund it.” The key word being “voluntarily”
[quote=qwerty007]the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them[/quote]
Likely, the strong arm of the govt is the reason costs are so high in the first place.
Your comments about “moral duty” make sense, but punishing people for not upholding their moral duty is unethical as your morals and theirs are different. Lots of republicans feel it is society’s moral duty to be not gay, for example.
December 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM #496568Participant[quote=qwerty007]Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. [/quote]
That makes no sense.
If someone decides to kill someone, that doesn’t mean they didn’t have the right to live.[quote=qwerty007]Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so.[/quote]
Not a bad point but off the mark a bit. You might say “Health care is a right if enough of the population voluntarily decide to fund it.” The key word being “voluntarily”
[quote=qwerty007]the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them[/quote]
Likely, the strong arm of the govt is the reason costs are so high in the first place.
Your comments about “moral duty” make sense, but punishing people for not upholding their moral duty is unethical as your morals and theirs are different. Lots of republicans feel it is society’s moral duty to be not gay, for example.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.