- This topic has 1,015 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
KSMountain.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM #496809December 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM #495949
davelj
Participant[quote=sdduuuude][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.[/quote]
On the one hand, I agree with you here. And then there’s the reality, which is that we have a large and growing population of folks in this country who feel disenfranchised – the poor and (truly) middle class who also tend to be under-insured where health care is concerned.
Now, you may argue that these folks STILL have it better off than 90% of the rest of the world (in terms of population) where their standard of living is concerned and I’ll agree with you. But, you see, they don’t live in the “rest of the world,” they live here. Among us. And therein lies the rub.
Taxes, income redistribution, universal health care, etc. etc. etc. are NOT principally about making folks’ lives better (although it’s nice when it happens). These things are about keeping the masses from revolting and watching this country devolve into anarchy – it’s the price we pay for relative social and economic stability. While a Libertarian world is a nice fantasy, it’s just that – a fantasy. The have-nots would ultimately revolt in a Libertarian world and we’d be left in shambles. Galt’s Gulch was a nice literary device, but it doesn’t work that way in the real world.
If I have to pay some ransom in the form of higher taxes, etc. in order to keep the masses at bay, then that’s the cost of doing business. I’d rather do that then live in the Libertarian Fantasyland where I have to worry about getting shot every time I walk out the door… if I even have a door to walk out of.
December 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM #496103Participant[quote=sdduuuude][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.[/quote]
On the one hand, I agree with you here. And then there’s the reality, which is that we have a large and growing population of folks in this country who feel disenfranchised – the poor and (truly) middle class who also tend to be under-insured where health care is concerned.
Now, you may argue that these folks STILL have it better off than 90% of the rest of the world (in terms of population) where their standard of living is concerned and I’ll agree with you. But, you see, they don’t live in the “rest of the world,” they live here. Among us. And therein lies the rub.
Taxes, income redistribution, universal health care, etc. etc. etc. are NOT principally about making folks’ lives better (although it’s nice when it happens). These things are about keeping the masses from revolting and watching this country devolve into anarchy – it’s the price we pay for relative social and economic stability. While a Libertarian world is a nice fantasy, it’s just that – a fantasy. The have-nots would ultimately revolt in a Libertarian world and we’d be left in shambles. Galt’s Gulch was a nice literary device, but it doesn’t work that way in the real world.
If I have to pay some ransom in the form of higher taxes, etc. in order to keep the masses at bay, then that’s the cost of doing business. I’d rather do that then live in the Libertarian Fantasyland where I have to worry about getting shot every time I walk out the door… if I even have a door to walk out of.
December 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM #496484Participant[quote=sdduuuude][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.[/quote]
On the one hand, I agree with you here. And then there’s the reality, which is that we have a large and growing population of folks in this country who feel disenfranchised – the poor and (truly) middle class who also tend to be under-insured where health care is concerned.
Now, you may argue that these folks STILL have it better off than 90% of the rest of the world (in terms of population) where their standard of living is concerned and I’ll agree with you. But, you see, they don’t live in the “rest of the world,” they live here. Among us. And therein lies the rub.
Taxes, income redistribution, universal health care, etc. etc. etc. are NOT principally about making folks’ lives better (although it’s nice when it happens). These things are about keeping the masses from revolting and watching this country devolve into anarchy – it’s the price we pay for relative social and economic stability. While a Libertarian world is a nice fantasy, it’s just that – a fantasy. The have-nots would ultimately revolt in a Libertarian world and we’d be left in shambles. Galt’s Gulch was a nice literary device, but it doesn’t work that way in the real world.
If I have to pay some ransom in the form of higher taxes, etc. in order to keep the masses at bay, then that’s the cost of doing business. I’d rather do that then live in the Libertarian Fantasyland where I have to worry about getting shot every time I walk out the door… if I even have a door to walk out of.
December 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM #496573Participant[quote=sdduuuude][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.[/quote]
On the one hand, I agree with you here. And then there’s the reality, which is that we have a large and growing population of folks in this country who feel disenfranchised – the poor and (truly) middle class who also tend to be under-insured where health care is concerned.
Now, you may argue that these folks STILL have it better off than 90% of the rest of the world (in terms of population) where their standard of living is concerned and I’ll agree with you. But, you see, they don’t live in the “rest of the world,” they live here. Among us. And therein lies the rub.
Taxes, income redistribution, universal health care, etc. etc. etc. are NOT principally about making folks’ lives better (although it’s nice when it happens). These things are about keeping the masses from revolting and watching this country devolve into anarchy – it’s the price we pay for relative social and economic stability. While a Libertarian world is a nice fantasy, it’s just that – a fantasy. The have-nots would ultimately revolt in a Libertarian world and we’d be left in shambles. Galt’s Gulch was a nice literary device, but it doesn’t work that way in the real world.
If I have to pay some ransom in the form of higher taxes, etc. in order to keep the masses at bay, then that’s the cost of doing business. I’d rather do that then live in the Libertarian Fantasyland where I have to worry about getting shot every time I walk out the door… if I even have a door to walk out of.
December 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM #496814Participant[quote=sdduuuude][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.[/quote]
On the one hand, I agree with you here. And then there’s the reality, which is that we have a large and growing population of folks in this country who feel disenfranchised – the poor and (truly) middle class who also tend to be under-insured where health care is concerned.
Now, you may argue that these folks STILL have it better off than 90% of the rest of the world (in terms of population) where their standard of living is concerned and I’ll agree with you. But, you see, they don’t live in the “rest of the world,” they live here. Among us. And therein lies the rub.
Taxes, income redistribution, universal health care, etc. etc. etc. are NOT principally about making folks’ lives better (although it’s nice when it happens). These things are about keeping the masses from revolting and watching this country devolve into anarchy – it’s the price we pay for relative social and economic stability. While a Libertarian world is a nice fantasy, it’s just that – a fantasy. The have-nots would ultimately revolt in a Libertarian world and we’d be left in shambles. Galt’s Gulch was a nice literary device, but it doesn’t work that way in the real world.
If I have to pay some ransom in the form of higher taxes, etc. in order to keep the masses at bay, then that’s the cost of doing business. I’d rather do that then live in the Libertarian Fantasyland where I have to worry about getting shot every time I walk out the door… if I even have a door to walk out of.
December 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM #495954Anonymous
Guest[quote]anything that costs money can’t be a right[/quote]
This claim is so flawed it is not even worth debating.
Jury trials certainly cost money, and I’m pretty sure they get mention is the “rights” section of the Constitution.
December 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM #496108Guest[quote]anything that costs money can’t be a right[/quote]
This claim is so flawed it is not even worth debating.
Jury trials certainly cost money, and I’m pretty sure they get mention is the “rights” section of the Constitution.
December 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM #496489Guest[quote]anything that costs money can’t be a right[/quote]
This claim is so flawed it is not even worth debating.
Jury trials certainly cost money, and I’m pretty sure they get mention is the “rights” section of the Constitution.
December 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM #496578Guest[quote]anything that costs money can’t be a right[/quote]
This claim is so flawed it is not even worth debating.
Jury trials certainly cost money, and I’m pretty sure they get mention is the “rights” section of the Constitution.
December 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM #496819Guest[quote]anything that costs money can’t be a right[/quote]
This claim is so flawed it is not even worth debating.
Jury trials certainly cost money, and I’m pretty sure they get mention is the “rights” section of the Constitution.
December 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM #495964Arraya
ParticipantThere is no such thing as unalienable rights. They are simply cultural constructs to problems of the time. That’s all, we make them up. Our documents are just paper proclamations of this and language is always subject to interpretation, always. Humans make it up as the go along. Always have and always will.
As the Right continues to blabber about a mythical socialist takeover, private capital pulls all the strings. Bwahaaa… Keep chasing socialist ghosts guys. They are turning into those people that sees jesus in cheese sandwiches. Like Obama was out at the docks with factory workers planning a populist uprising when his campaign was receiving checks from GS and their ilk. haha
If you have not guessed it by now. The country has not changed between GW and Obama. If Sarah Palin, Dennis Kucinich, or Britney Spears were president, the system that the president pretends to run would still be bailing out banks and insurance companies, escalating wars, hiding atrocities, and generally chugging along to its ruin. The suicidal inertia is too great at this point.
Ironically, it’s paralyzing and self-destructive non-change that rules with an iron fist. The political left just mixes it up with some perceived goodies to keep the unwashed in check, ONLY if it benefits the corporatocracy that runs the show.
Health care is a good intention on a dead and rotting system that has been configured to enrich a few and not really change anything. Which is the only way it would pass.
This thing does not go into effect until, 2013. By that time I would be surprised if anyone in washington answers their phones. haha
One of these days real “change” is going to vomit all over the whole establishment.
Oh look, insurance stocks are up. Well, Mr Market is always right, so it must be good….
December 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM #496118ParticipantThere is no such thing as unalienable rights. They are simply cultural constructs to problems of the time. That’s all, we make them up. Our documents are just paper proclamations of this and language is always subject to interpretation, always. Humans make it up as the go along. Always have and always will.
As the Right continues to blabber about a mythical socialist takeover, private capital pulls all the strings. Bwahaaa… Keep chasing socialist ghosts guys. They are turning into those people that sees jesus in cheese sandwiches. Like Obama was out at the docks with factory workers planning a populist uprising when his campaign was receiving checks from GS and their ilk. haha
If you have not guessed it by now. The country has not changed between GW and Obama. If Sarah Palin, Dennis Kucinich, or Britney Spears were president, the system that the president pretends to run would still be bailing out banks and insurance companies, escalating wars, hiding atrocities, and generally chugging along to its ruin. The suicidal inertia is too great at this point.
Ironically, it’s paralyzing and self-destructive non-change that rules with an iron fist. The political left just mixes it up with some perceived goodies to keep the unwashed in check, ONLY if it benefits the corporatocracy that runs the show.
Health care is a good intention on a dead and rotting system that has been configured to enrich a few and not really change anything. Which is the only way it would pass.
This thing does not go into effect until, 2013. By that time I would be surprised if anyone in washington answers their phones. haha
One of these days real “change” is going to vomit all over the whole establishment.
Oh look, insurance stocks are up. Well, Mr Market is always right, so it must be good….
December 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM #496499ParticipantThere is no such thing as unalienable rights. They are simply cultural constructs to problems of the time. That’s all, we make them up. Our documents are just paper proclamations of this and language is always subject to interpretation, always. Humans make it up as the go along. Always have and always will.
As the Right continues to blabber about a mythical socialist takeover, private capital pulls all the strings. Bwahaaa… Keep chasing socialist ghosts guys. They are turning into those people that sees jesus in cheese sandwiches. Like Obama was out at the docks with factory workers planning a populist uprising when his campaign was receiving checks from GS and their ilk. haha
If you have not guessed it by now. The country has not changed between GW and Obama. If Sarah Palin, Dennis Kucinich, or Britney Spears were president, the system that the president pretends to run would still be bailing out banks and insurance companies, escalating wars, hiding atrocities, and generally chugging along to its ruin. The suicidal inertia is too great at this point.
Ironically, it’s paralyzing and self-destructive non-change that rules with an iron fist. The political left just mixes it up with some perceived goodies to keep the unwashed in check, ONLY if it benefits the corporatocracy that runs the show.
Health care is a good intention on a dead and rotting system that has been configured to enrich a few and not really change anything. Which is the only way it would pass.
This thing does not go into effect until, 2013. By that time I would be surprised if anyone in washington answers their phones. haha
One of these days real “change” is going to vomit all over the whole establishment.
Oh look, insurance stocks are up. Well, Mr Market is always right, so it must be good….
December 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM #496588ParticipantThere is no such thing as unalienable rights. They are simply cultural constructs to problems of the time. That’s all, we make them up. Our documents are just paper proclamations of this and language is always subject to interpretation, always. Humans make it up as the go along. Always have and always will.
As the Right continues to blabber about a mythical socialist takeover, private capital pulls all the strings. Bwahaaa… Keep chasing socialist ghosts guys. They are turning into those people that sees jesus in cheese sandwiches. Like Obama was out at the docks with factory workers planning a populist uprising when his campaign was receiving checks from GS and their ilk. haha
If you have not guessed it by now. The country has not changed between GW and Obama. If Sarah Palin, Dennis Kucinich, or Britney Spears were president, the system that the president pretends to run would still be bailing out banks and insurance companies, escalating wars, hiding atrocities, and generally chugging along to its ruin. The suicidal inertia is too great at this point.
Ironically, it’s paralyzing and self-destructive non-change that rules with an iron fist. The political left just mixes it up with some perceived goodies to keep the unwashed in check, ONLY if it benefits the corporatocracy that runs the show.
Health care is a good intention on a dead and rotting system that has been configured to enrich a few and not really change anything. Which is the only way it would pass.
This thing does not go into effect until, 2013. By that time I would be surprised if anyone in washington answers their phones. haha
One of these days real “change” is going to vomit all over the whole establishment.
Oh look, insurance stocks are up. Well, Mr Market is always right, so it must be good….
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.