OT: Wealth Redistribution Experiment

[underdose]

Full disclosure: I am a staunch republican in the libertarian sense. I strongly oppose Obama’s socialistic bent.

I will still vote for Obama. Neither candidate wants free markets. McCain stands for more of the same as the Bush administration has given us: deficit spending, sneaky taxation through monetary debasement, expanding militarism, suppression of civil rights, and appointment of complete incompetents (Michael Brown, etc.) to important posts (Sarah Palin).

All the criticisms of Obama are well founded. Those points do not make the valid criticisms of McCain as a horribly inferior alternative any less valid. The point made above that Bush (and McCain) would give the tip directly to the restaurant owner is spot on, except not extreme enough. The tip would go to the owner of the horribly mismanaged restaurant down the street with lousy food and worse fiscal savvy. Of course, this failing restauranteur would be great friends with McCain and would give McCain $1 out of every $5 received…

I’ve heard it put best: I did not leave the republican party; the republican party left me.

[MANmom]

It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. Many times, the smart people do not succeed, whereas the people who are not as smart become great successes. I personally know a Orthopedic surgeon that got into drugs and lost his medical license…and yet, when I went to high school, there was a girl in school who was not very bright. No one thought she would make anything of herself…BUT! Just google Shari’s Berries and see where my friend Shari is today…one of the largest and best chocolate dipped strawberry companies in the world. It just takes good ideas and a bit of courage, and anyone can do it if they go after what they want. It is not always the smart folks who succeed.

[MANmom]

It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. Many times, the smart people do not succeed, whereas the people who are not as smart become great successes. I personally know a Orthopedic surgeon that got into drugs and lost his medical license…and yet, when I went to high school, there was a girl in school who was not very bright. No one thought she would make anything of herself…BUT! Just google Shari’s Berries and see where my friend Shari is today…one of the largest and best chocolate dipped strawberry companies in the world. It just takes good ideas and a bit of courage, and anyone can do it if they go after what they want. It is not always the smart folks who succeed.

[MANmom]

It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. Many times, the smart people do not succeed, whereas the people who are not as smart become great successes. I personally know a Orthopedic surgeon that got into drugs and lost his medical license…and yet, when I went to high school, there was a girl in school who was not very bright. No one thought she would make anything of herself…BUT! Just google Shari’s Berries and see where my friend Shari is today…one of the largest and best chocolate dipped strawberry companies in the world. It just takes good ideas and a bit of courage, and anyone can do it if they go after what they want. It is not always the smart folks who succeed.

[MANmom]

It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. Many times, the smart people do not succeed, whereas the people who are not as smart become great successes. I personally know a Orthopedic surgeon that got into drugs and lost his medical license…and yet, when I went to high school, there was a girl in school who was not very bright. No one thought she would make anything of herself…BUT! Just google Shari’s Berries and see where my friend Shari is today…one of the largest and best chocolate dipped strawberry companies in the world. It just takes good ideas and a bit of courage, and anyone can do it if they go after what they want. It is not always the smart folks who succeed.

[MANmom]

It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. Many times, the smart people do not succeed, whereas the people who are not as smart become great successes. I personally know a Orthopedic surgeon that got into drugs and lost his medical license…and yet, when I went to high school, there was a girl in school who was not very bright. No one thought she would make anything of herself…BUT! Just google Shari’s Berries and see where my friend Shari is today…one of the largest and best chocolate dipped strawberry companies in the world. It just takes good ideas and a bit of courage, and anyone can do it if they go after what they want. It is not always the smart folks who succeed.

[meadandale]

[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]

All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.

However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.

The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.

Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.

[meadandale]

[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]

All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.

However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.

The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.

Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.

[meadandale]

[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]

All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.

However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.

The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.

Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.

[meadandale]

[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]

All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.

However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.

The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.

Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.

[meadandale]

[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]

All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.

However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.

The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.

Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.

[MANmom]

I totally agree…when they ask me to pay for someone else’s healthcare, I want to be able to monitor what they eat, drink and smoke. I’m not paying for someone else’s gluttony. I also want to make sure they spend at least 30 minutes a day excersizing, don’t drive motorcycles…the list goes on and on. Health care is not a right, it is a personal responsibility.

[MANmom]

I totally agree…when they ask me to pay for someone else’s healthcare, I want to be able to monitor what they eat, drink and smoke. I’m not paying for someone else’s gluttony. I also want to make sure they spend at least 30 minutes a day excersizing, don’t drive motorcycles…the list goes on and on. Health care is not a right, it is a personal responsibility.

[MANmom]

I totally agree…when they ask me to pay for someone else’s healthcare, I want to be able to monitor what they eat, drink and smoke. I’m not paying for someone else’s gluttony. I also want to make sure they spend at least 30 minutes a day excersizing, don’t drive motorcycles…the list goes on and on. Health care is not a right, it is a personal responsibility.

[MANmom]

I totally agree…when they ask me to pay for someone else’s healthcare, I want to be able to monitor what they eat, drink and smoke. I’m not paying for someone else’s gluttony. I also want to make sure they spend at least 30 minutes a day excersizing, don’t drive motorcycles…the list goes on and on. Health care is not a right, it is a personal responsibility.

[Author]

Posts