[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[sdduuuude]

The problem is this – when you say that something is a “right” when that right requires someone else to adminster it, you are, by logic, depriving those who must administer it of their freedom.

You must, logically, force someone to provide healthcare – a prospect I believe is unethical.

I don’t believe we are born with any “positive” rights – or rights that require depriving someone else of their freedom.

[sdduuuude]

The problem is this – when you say that something is a “right” when that right requires someone else to adminster it, you are, by logic, depriving those who must administer it of their freedom.

You must, logically, force someone to provide healthcare – a prospect I believe is unethical.

I don’t believe we are born with any “positive” rights – or rights that require depriving someone else of their freedom.

[sdduuuude]

The problem is this – when you say that something is a “right” when that right requires someone else to adminster it, you are, by logic, depriving those who must administer it of their freedom.

You must, logically, force someone to provide healthcare – a prospect I believe is unethical.

I don’t believe we are born with any “positive” rights – or rights that require depriving someone else of their freedom.

[sdduuuude]

The problem is this – when you say that something is a “right” when that right requires someone else to adminster it, you are, by logic, depriving those who must administer it of their freedom.

You must, logically, force someone to provide healthcare – a prospect I believe is unethical.

I don’t believe we are born with any “positive” rights – or rights that require depriving someone else of their freedom.

[sdduuuude]

The problem is this – when you say that something is a “right” when that right requires someone else to adminster it, you are, by logic, depriving those who must administer it of their freedom.

You must, logically, force someone to provide healthcare – a prospect I believe is unethical.

I don’t believe we are born with any “positive” rights – or rights that require depriving someone else of their freedom.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Noob]Why would the product being water or electricity be any diffent? It it is important and useful, not to mention profitable and a good investment, the private sector will fund it. Otherwise, its just a hare brained, money losing idea–and why would the taxpayer want to be involved in that?[/quote]

Exactly.
Dasani, Arrowhead. They didn’t need government funding and they have a water company. I purchased a water filter. Doubt they were funded by the gov.

Electricity is a screwed-up industry, that’s for sure, but if you can’t convince private funders to pony up the money, it means there isn’t enough payback to justify the risk. Period.

So, you go to the government and suddenly, they think it’s worth the risk ? The gov. shouldn’t be in business at all. Why do they need to fund businesses now? The list of things the government does but shouldn’t do grows daily, it seems.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Noob]Why would the product being water or electricity be any diffent? It it is important and useful, not to mention profitable and a good investment, the private sector will fund it. Otherwise, its just a hare brained, money losing idea–and why would the taxpayer want to be involved in that?[/quote]

Exactly.
Dasani, Arrowhead. They didn’t need government funding and they have a water company. I purchased a water filter. Doubt they were funded by the gov.

Electricity is a screwed-up industry, that’s for sure, but if you can’t convince private funders to pony up the money, it means there isn’t enough payback to justify the risk. Period.

So, you go to the government and suddenly, they think it’s worth the risk ? The gov. shouldn’t be in business at all. Why do they need to fund businesses now? The list of things the government does but shouldn’t do grows daily, it seems.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Noob]Why would the product being water or electricity be any diffent? It it is important and useful, not to mention profitable and a good investment, the private sector will fund it. Otherwise, its just a hare brained, money losing idea–and why would the taxpayer want to be involved in that?[/quote]

Exactly.
Dasani, Arrowhead. They didn’t need government funding and they have a water company. I purchased a water filter. Doubt they were funded by the gov.

Electricity is a screwed-up industry, that’s for sure, but if you can’t convince private funders to pony up the money, it means there isn’t enough payback to justify the risk. Period.

So, you go to the government and suddenly, they think it’s worth the risk ? The gov. shouldn’t be in business at all. Why do they need to fund businesses now? The list of things the government does but shouldn’t do grows daily, it seems.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Noob]Why would the product being water or electricity be any diffent? It it is important and useful, not to mention profitable and a good investment, the private sector will fund it. Otherwise, its just a hare brained, money losing idea–and why would the taxpayer want to be involved in that?[/quote]

Exactly.
Dasani, Arrowhead. They didn’t need government funding and they have a water company. I purchased a water filter. Doubt they were funded by the gov.

Electricity is a screwed-up industry, that’s for sure, but if you can’t convince private funders to pony up the money, it means there isn’t enough payback to justify the risk. Period.

So, you go to the government and suddenly, they think it’s worth the risk ? The gov. shouldn’t be in business at all. Why do they need to fund businesses now? The list of things the government does but shouldn’t do grows daily, it seems.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Noob]Why would the product being water or electricity be any diffent? It it is important and useful, not to mention profitable and a good investment, the private sector will fund it. Otherwise, its just a hare brained, money losing idea–and why would the taxpayer want to be involved in that?[/quote]

Exactly.
Dasani, Arrowhead. They didn’t need government funding and they have a water company. I purchased a water filter. Doubt they were funded by the gov.

Electricity is a screwed-up industry, that’s for sure, but if you can’t convince private funders to pony up the money, it means there isn’t enough payback to justify the risk. Period.

So, you go to the government and suddenly, they think it’s worth the risk ? The gov. shouldn’t be in business at all. Why do they need to fund businesses now? The list of things the government does but shouldn’t do grows daily, it seems.

[sdduuuude]

From “The Three Amigos”:

Girl: We could go outside and you could kiss me on the veranda.
Chevy Chase: On the lips would be fine.

[Author]

Posts