Legislating Morality

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

All insurance companies do is take your money take a cut and then give it to the people who provide health care.

Yes. Which makes it straight up insane that people are trying to pass a law requiring every American to purchase their products, and contribute to their bottom line. And some people even want the government to pay directly into their bottom line with taxpayer dollars.

How's that a good idea?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

?? In that case, I would have a choice as to whether to pay you or die. I would then have a further choice as to whether to drive it or not after you had left.

Right. Two separate choices that do not imply anything about each other.

Quote

I assume no one is holding a gun to your head, so your choice is much easier than mine would be.

Sure. Because if I choose not to purchase the vastly overpriced bundle of government services, I'm sure no one is going to object to that, right? Certainly no men with guns will show up to lock me away unless I agree to pay, right?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,998]

>Because if I choose not to purchase the vastly overpriced bundle of
>government services, I'm sure no one is going to object to that, right?

You can choose not to use them. No one is holding a gun to your head. You cannot choose not to pay for them.

However, using them while proclaiming that you should not be charged for them - and further proclaiming that people who DO use them are "legislating morality" - is not a very strong position to argue from.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You're asking me to describe the injustices that will result from "uni-care"? Do I understand that properly?

Is this the old, "Do we have a bad connection" line? Tom, you claimed there would be an injustice to you if uni-care is passed, what do you mean by that?

Quote

Can you please define "uni-care"? I'm not really familiar with the term, but I bet that if I don't get it defined it's going to be the next thing that comes up in this discussion.

I see what Billvon means. I'm not going to make this an argument of semantics, spelling errors or anything petty, uni-care is universal care, more commonly called socialized medicine, but most appropriately called universal care. Frankly, you pick the term and we'll go with it, but I just want to hear how you thinbk an injustice will be served upon you if some form of medical care is extended to everyone.

[livendive 8]

If you don't think there's any correlation between borrowing and repayment, then how about you assume the debt and not repay it, rather than all of us assuming the debt and not paying it?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

No. If you want to discuss the injustices of "uni-care" I'd like you to define the term before we start.

OK, fair enough, I did that in the previous post. Uni-care = universal care. Universal care is healthcare for all people in simple terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Quote

This, 'let our kids pay it off' is tired. It's not like a temporary loan, we have been a debtor nation BEFORE we became a nation, as with virtually every nation. It's really tired to think a logical process of we borrow - they pay exists. I mean, it's been a revolving credit card for 233+ years, do you think the lenders see getting paid back, ever?

----------------------------

And that makes it ok? Once a problem has gone on long enough, it's no longer a problem?

Heck, we had slavery for hundreds of years. I can't imagine why anyone thought it was a problem.

Point is, our kids will never pay off this debt. If the world is still inhabited by humans in 200 years, the debt will likely be larger than it is now, even if harsh measures are implemented to avoid any and all expenditures. Perhaps if we get more presidents like Clinton who have the guts to tax the rich we will see the debt start dropping, but the rate will be so slow it will be negligible. Overspending is not ok, but neither is allowing 1/6th of your population to go w/o healthcare. The answer is taking the middlemen out and establishing some sort of universal care.

Want a model? Canada: their dollar is about to pass us again and they have soc med; how is it that we don't have soc med and our dollar is tanking and has been since GWB? Obvioulsy avoiding soc med isn't the key to fiscal success. Again, no correaltion.

Quote

BTW, again, you posted borrowed for the last 30 years, you may have missed the "2" before the "30", as we have been a debtor nation before our inception as a nation.

-----------------------------

The scope of our borrowing to pay for regular spending in the last 30 years is unprecedented in American history. Probably in world history, actually.

With the exception of the Clinton era, he inherited a 250B/yr debt increase and left 33B, so he was part of the fix, as well he left a 236B surplus. The problem is that Reagan and GWB cut taxes and overspent, but debt increases in the Civil War, WWII and VN were substantial, but justified.

Quote

Civil War and WWII borrowing was huge...

---------------------------------

Yep. And guess what, we actually paid it back, after the wars were over.

Really???? Wrong, the debt fell VERY SLIGHTLY for a couple years during Eisenhower and then again in 1969 allegedly from VN surplusses, but no substantial debt has ever been paid down with the exception of during Andrew Jackson on the 1830's where the Revolutionary War debt was paid down.

Quote

Exactly my point. The magnitude of the debt before 1980 is tiny compared with where we are now.

Exactly, tiny by comparison, but still substantial, esp considering being adjusted for inflation. IOW's, the 3T debt that occurred under Reagan / Bush was about as much as the 5T under GWB, adjusting for inflation.

Quote

These levels of debt are unsustainable. Pointing to 200 years of much smaller debt as evidence that we can sustain this is misleading at best.

Not at all, adjust them for inflation. Also, I haven't lived in this forum since it's inception, but I don't recall you complaining about 600B yr military spending. We're back to a basic partisan argument of pro-military spending versus pro-social spending and the answer would be that it's our turn to socialize the country, then your party will takeover again and we will militarize the world again.

But I'm still waiting to hear how an injustice is placed upon you.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

All insurance companies do is take your money take a cut and then give it to the people who provide health care.

Yes. Which makes it straight up insane that people are trying to pass a law requiring every American to purchase their products, and contribute to their bottom line. And some people even want the government to pay directly into their bottom line with taxpayer dollars.

How's that a good idea?

Now that I agree with, passing a law to mandate health insurance like auto insurance is pathetic, esp since the limits can be changed by a fine future Repiblican president and the reqquirement be maintained.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

However, using them while proclaiming that you should not be charged for them - and further proclaiming that people who DO use them are "legislating morality" - is not a very strong position to argue from.

I don't agree.

Using them while proclaiming that you should not be charged for them, and do not wish to purchase them, is a pretty morally defensible position.

I read a proclamation that you do not wish to be charged for them as a de facto statement that you'd prefer not to use them, but have no choice.

Clearly you've read it as a wish to get something without paying for it. I submit that we've read enough of Lawrocket's (and my own) opinions that you're reading something there that wasn't actually present, and you know that.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

If you don't think there's any correlation between borrowing and repayment, then how about you assume the debt and not repay it, rather than all of us assuming the debt and not paying it?

Blues,
Dave

I really wish people would place the quote that I made in the box. All I can assume you are responding to is this:

LUCKY: Again, there is no connect between uni-care and taxes; NONE. If uni-care fails, taxes will rise by as much as those who advocate tax increases can. If uni-care passes - read the above statement.


If so, I wrote that there is no connection between uni-care and taxes, as in the tax rate. That's different that borring and paying, which is a simplistic and unrealistic way to look at the government or for that matter, all government.

Outlay (spending) appropriations and tax rate collecctions are nbot considered together. To say there is would be as hypothetical as me saying that a healthier society has a higher GDP, hence uni-care is a fiscally sound thing to implement. Maybe it would be and reduce the debt increases, maybe it would tack on to the debt, either way whether the HC proposals pass or fail, taxes will be increased at the very least by the sunsetting tax reduction. I would be real strapped to think that Obama won't raise them more.

To keep this in context, the debt will never be paid off, 233 years of drastic increase s/b evidence of that. Uni-care has zero to do with possible tax hikes in the comming year or two.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Using them while proclaiming that you should not be charged for them, and do not wish to purchase them, is a pretty morally defensible position.

I don't see morality playing a factor here. I see it as hypocrisy. Complaining at having to pay for coffee at work as you pour a cup is ridiculous. You could buy coffee elsewhere and not drink work coffee. Remember, you have not established how you will have to pay for uni-care if it passes.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Uni-care has zero to do with possible tax hikes in the comming year or two.

I understand you - in other words, if uni-care (TM) is not passed, they'll make up something else in order to justify outrageous tax increases......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Outlay (spending) appropriations and tax rate collecctions are nbot considered together.

In the short term. Even in the middle to long term, if you happen to be a large, powerful and wealthy nation.

But in the end, debts do, actually, have to be repaid.



How much you spend on a credit card need not be tied to your income in the short term. But in the long run, the bills will come due.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Please, please, please, I'm begging you to provide a definition of "uni-care." I am not familiar with the term, and I want to know what, specifically, you are talking about.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Uni-care has zero to do with possible tax hikes in the comming year or two.

I understand you - in other words, if uni-care (TM) is not passed, they'll make up something else in order to justify outrageous tax increases......

Sure, blame the debt, blame Iraq, blame whatever. They're politicians, they do what they want and find a backdoor way to justify it. When Clinton and Obama were elected they knew they would be raising taxes and at least Obaam said so. GHWB may not have known he would be rising taxes, altho maybe he did and it was an emptry campaign promise, which I think is likely, but what a great president.

Cliton wanted tax increases and soc med, he got the former but not the latter.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Outlay (spending) appropriations and tax rate collecctions are nbot considered together.

In the short term. Even in the middle to long term, if you happen to be a large, powerful and wealthy nation.

But in the end, debts do, actually, have to be repaid.



How much you spend on a credit card need not be tied to your income in the short term. But in the long run, the bills will come due.

Oversimplification as an analogy is fine, but US fiscal properties are SO MUCH MORE complicated.

So a nation's debt get paid back; are there any nations that have ever paid off their national debt? All we do is pay on the interest.

Here's an article that says we paid off the debt in 1835 under Jackson:

http://www.business.auburn.edu/~whittdo/THE%20ELIMINATION%20OF%20THE%20NATIONAL%20DEBT%20IN%201835.htm

I read elswhere that we alomst did, either way, has any nation paid off its debt, esp a substantial debt?

Either way, you and I will never see it and if you have nay real issues with spending, why not look at this monsterous military spending at 600B a year? Never hear ya complaining about that, so is it the spending or the concept of social spending that bothers you? Yea, that was rhetorical.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Please, please, please, I'm begging you to provide a definition of "uni-care." I am not familiar with the term, and I want to know what, specifically, you are talking about.

I did once about 5 posts up, is this 'game, set, match' for me Tom?

I'll do it again and please explain how universal care expenditures will cost you a dime or create an injustice in your context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Universal health care is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care.

Health care systems vary according to the extent of government involvement in providing care, ranging from nationalized health care systems (such as the U.K. and Sweden) to decentralized private or non-profit institutions (as in Germany and France). Universal health care is implemented in all industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States.[1] It is also provided in many developing countries.

The underlined is what Obama is talking about.

The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.[1] The government directly covers 27.8% of the population[17] through health care programs for the elderly, disabled, military service families and veterans, children, and some of the poor, through Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and TRICARE.

SO if 27% are covered, and 16% are without, then only 57% of the people have healthcare ins on their own, a starkly different way to look at this issue.

EDITED TO ADD: POST 56 I PROVIDED A LINK TO THE DEFINITION.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...why not look at this monsterous military spending at 600B a year? Never hear ya complaining about that, so is it the spending or the concept of social spending that bothers you?

You're not paying attention to my posts, then. I think the US has a hugely overgrown, imperial military machine. We use it to promote our imperial agenda in various far flung parts of the world. It's insanely expensive, and I'm sick of paying for it. I'm pretty sure I've made that clear on this forum before, on several occasions.

I'd prefer to live in a Republic, with either no standing army or a very small standing army, and a populace generally comfortable with arms. This would cost the taxpayers very little, and would provide us a means of defense (or more likely, guerrilla insurrection) should we be invaded, but would leave us without the means to build (or maintain) our empire of client states. Which, in my view, would be an enormously good thing.


Please try to argue with my actual positions, rather than making up positions I do not hold, to use as straw men.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You're not paying attention to my posts, then. I think the US has a hugely overgrown, imperial military machine. We use it to promote our imperial agenda in various far flung parts of the world. It's insanely expensive, and I'm sick of paying for it. I'm pretty sure I've made that clear on this forum before, on several occasions.

As I wrote, I have not been here since the inception, so I don't know, I just have not seen you go it (military spending) at all or with such vehement. BTW, I agree and we should cut it in half for starters and see what it looks like then. GHWB and Clinton did a great job transitioning to that, then idiot came in and fucked it up.

I am not making up positions for you, just going with the information I know and I posed it that way. Furthermore, I'm not trying to make this about you or me, it's about the issue of healthcare, morality, costs, etc.

I still want to know how uni-care creates an injustice to you. I also want to know how uni-care would cost you a dime.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Universal health care is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care.

Health care, or health "insurance" coverage? Those are two very different things.


Regardless, to address your underlying question: What injustices do I see in imposing such a system on people who do not wish to be part of it?

I believe in a fundamental human right to self-determination. That means that people ought to be given the choice of doing whatever they wish to do, so long as they do not hurt other people.

Forcing people into a national healthcare system affronts their right to personal choice. This is unjust.

The injustice is much greater for those individuals who work in the healthcare sector. Forcing them to work for the government essentially removes their choice of employer, which is a major life decision in modern society.

Any expenditure of taxpayer dollars imposes upon individual choice. When people are forced to spend their money to purchase something they otherwise would not, they have lost their fundamental right to free choice. This is unjust.

Any borrowing in the name of someone, without their consent, imposes upon them a duty to repay, again without their consent. Government borrowing imposes a duty upon the citizens to repay the debt. This imposes upon the citizens free choice, by forcing upon them a burden they did not choose. This is unjust.


I find it interesting that you focus on the financial value to prove injustice. Your demand that I show how it will "cost me a dime" seems illogical. Must injustice have a dollar figure attached to be real injustice? Still, to respond to that part;

Regardless, I do not believe that any national healthcare system, and certainly not any along the lines currently under consideration, can be implemented without additional taxes. In fact, the most recent plan in the House called for additional taxes on anyone earning more than $250k/yr. Should such a proposal be passed, I'm certain that tax increase will cost me more than a dime.

Then there's the question of lost income. I believe that any such proposal will stifle economic activity, particularly in the healthcare sector, leading to a huge loss of productive income. That will likely reverberate through the economy, and we'll be able to argue all day about dollars "created or saved" versus "destroyed or lost." There will be no way to know who's right there, of course (which is why this tactic is a favorite of politicians generally) because we'll have no way to compare with the state of affairs had we passed a different proposal.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Health care, or health "insurance" coverage? Those are two very different things.

OK, so what's your point? They wrote, "health care coverage" not, health "insurance" coverage as you wrote, if yours was an extrapolation of theirs. The idea is that however they do it, and there are many ways from full-blown all-out socialized medicine bought and paid for by the gov at large, to non-profit insureers controlled by the gov. Either way, it's universal, meaning for all.

Quote

Regardless, to address your underlying question: What injustices do I see in imposing such a system on people who do not wish to be part of it?

OK, my question was about it being an injustice to you, I did not make the inference that you did not want to take part.

Quote

I believe in a fundamental human right to self-determination. That means that people ought to be given the choice of doing whatever they wish to do, so long as they do not hurt other people.

Forcing people into a national healthcare system affronts their right to personal choice. This is unjust.

In some countries such as Canada you have to enroll in it or go outside the country, so you could make a point there, but what is proposed here is just an avenue for a non-profit source for those who do not have it. I don't see you being forced into it.

I could draw analogy after another about the prohibitive speed limit, child custody system / child support (I don't have kids), placement of GOD in teh pledge, rules for unionization of workplaces (closed shop vs RTW), etc. SO I could go on and on and claim I'm being infringed upon because I can't drive 90-110 on the freeway, which I could competently do, it's my right to self-determination and I carry private auto insurance to cover an accident so I should have that right. How far would it go before a judge?

But it's injust for me to be held to 65, I can safely drive faster. Why am I being forced into driving 65, that's not my personal choice? I've made remedies in case I hurt someone, I have insurance, I bought the car, the gas, the tires; THIS IS AN ABOMINATION. In a busy and full society such as ours, we have to relinquish freedoms to gain securities, our choices are to go live in the middle of nowhere by ourselves and no one will care.

Quote

The injustice is much greater for those individuals who work in the healthcare sector. Forcing them to work for the government essentially removes their choice of employer, which is a major life decision in modern society.

You have no right to be employed. You make a lot of assumptions within that. First thatthe gov will be employers, second that hospoital workers won't like working for them. ALso, think of the work they will have for decades to come if more people can see the doctor. But even if the medical worker objected, should we put one occupation before the rest of the country? Seems like the rights (assuming they didn't want it) of very few would trump the rights of the country here, that's an injustice.

Quote

Any expenditure of taxpayer dollars imposes upon individual choice. When people are forced to spend their money to purchase something they otherwise would not, they have lost their fundamental right to free choice. This is unjust.

These are funny money dollars, just like the military expenditures. As for gov spending, show me one thing you have control over other than voting for bond measures, and even then you don't always have control of that. So with your reasoning here, you are in a constant state of injustice since probably most of what the gov spends is in conflict with what you would do. SO your newfound injustice with the proposed healthcare, this is status quo. Can you find anyone that is ok with much that the gov spends on? I can't. Somewhere in here the welfare of the people need to take precedence.

Quote

Any borrowing in the name of someone, without their consent, imposes upon them a duty to repay, again without their consent. Government borrowing imposes a duty upon the citizens to repay the debt. This imposes upon the citizens free choice, by forcing upon them a burden they did not choose. This is unjust.

WHo knows what the burden will be, but governmental borrowing, spending, taxing, etc isn't in the name of anyone. This is not a commune of 20 people, it's a massive beaurocracy of over 300 million, it just isn't that personal. Also, I'm sure there is quite a bit more that is bought, borrowed, etc that you disagree with. Your language is like that of which would be found in the Articles, we just aren't that country anymore. Finally, no one is borrowing in your name, this will not cost you a penny.

Quote

I find it interesting that you focus on the financial value to prove injustice. Your demand that I show how it will "cost me a dime" seems illogical. Must injustice have a dollar figure attached to be real injustice? Still, to respond to that part;

So what you're saying is that if it didn't cost a dime you would still oppose it? That's what you're saying when you say it's about the law not the cost. OK, back to my rhetoric questuion from last post. I inferred that if it cost you and you don't like it, then that is the injustice, am I wrong to infer that?

BTW, when you say this, I'm inferring that you thought it would be an injustice strictly because of teh cost, how else would it be an injustice from your perspective? You hate to see all people get healthcare? How is taht an injustice? That would be like me being pissed because my neighbor just bought a new Corvette; where's teh injustice?

Quote

Regardless, I do not believe that any national healthcare system, and certainly not any along the lines currently under consideration, can be implemented without additional taxes. In fact, the most recent plan in the House called for additional taxes on anyone earning more than $250k/yr. Should such a proposal be passed, I'm certain that tax increase will cost me more than a dime.

You're flip-flopping, you just wrote: I find it interesting that you focus on the financial value to prove injustice. Now it is aboutthe money. Is the injustice about the perceived cost or not? Is it somehow both? As for a tax increase, Obama siad he was going to raise taxes on people over 250K DURING HIS CAMPAIGN, did ya miss that? Even if a tax increase is piggybacked, it was planedd loooooong ago. And if Obama has to dump it to get the votes to pass HC, he will and reintroduce it later. Taxes will be raised under Obama HC or no HC. And probably beyond Bush's sunsetting tax cuts.

Quote

Then there's the question of lost income. I believe that any such proposal will stifle economic activity, particularly in the healthcare sector, leading to a huge loss of productive income.

And there won't be a rush of people who haven't had HC for years now rushing the hospitals to get care they've put off? Please. HC will blow up with demand for workers.

Quote

That will likely reverberate through the economy, and we'll be able to argue all day about dollars "created or saved" versus "destroyed or lost."

Actually I'll be glad to argue surgeries had versus surgeries that would have been postponed, see it's more of a humanitarian issue for me than a business decision.

Quote

There will be no way to know who's right there, of course (which is why this tactic is a favorite of politicians generally) because we'll have no way to compare with the state of affairs had we passed a different proposal.

Oh a, "DIFFERENT PROPOSAL? Is that cryptic for status quo? I think it will be easy to figure the cost, gain, etc on many levels. All we have to do is look at where we are after uni-care, compare that with where we are now, as the GOP proposal is status quo. They have not proposed anything that ensure all Americans have healthcare, just buying policies accross state lines and other lame non-measures.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

In some countries such as Canada you have to enroll in it or go outside the country, so you could make a point there, but what is proposed here...

I was working from _your_ linked definition of "uni-care" (that still sounds like a mythical beast similar to a horse, but with a horn, to me).

Quote

How far would it go before a judge?

You asked for my definition of injustice, not that of a judge.

Quote

Why am I being forced into driving 65, that's not my personal choice?

Good question. I don't think you should be.

Quote

You make a lot of assumptions within that.

Again, I'm just working from your linked definition of "uni-care."

Quote

Seems like the rights (assuming they didn't want it) of very few would trump the rights of the country here, that's an injustice.

The "country" doesn't have any rights. Rights inhere in individuals, not groups.

Quote

These are funny money dollars...

I'm not buying the "it's all fake spending anyway, so who cares how much we spend" argument. Sorry. Sell that somewhere else.

Quote

WHo knows what the burden will be, but governmental borrowing, spending, taxing, etc isn't in the name of anyone.

It's in the name of the citizens of the United States of America. That's me, last time I checked.

Quote

So what you're saying is that if it didn't cost a dime you would still oppose it?

Yes. I'd oppose slavery, even though that wouldn't cost me a dime. I'd oppose censorship of political speech, and that wouldn't cost me a dime. I'd oppose rounding up and killing jews, even though that wouldn't cost me a dime.



BTW, when you say this, I'm inferring that you thought it would be an injustice strictly because of teh cost, how else would it be an injustice from your perspective? You hate to see all people get healthcare? How is taht an injustice? That would be like me being pissed because my neighbor just bought a new Corvette; where's teh injustice?

Quote

Quote

Regardless...

You're flip-flopping, you just wrote...

No, I'm addressing your point, even though I just explained why it isn't terribly relevant. That's why I began my sentence with the word "regardless."

Quote

Oh a, "DIFFERENT PROPOSAL? Is that cryptic for status quo?

No. Here is a detailed plan for real healthcare reform. A very similar proposal was put forward by a guy named John McCain about this time last year. Just plugging your ears and chanting "you have no ideas" doesn't mean that there really aren't any out there. It means that you're not willing to listen to them.

Quote

...They have not proposed anything that ensure all Americans have healthcare...

Bullshit. Read Friedman's proposal. That's pretty close to what McCain proposed last year. How can you say that's not a proposal for reform? It would (a) reduce costs, (b) guarantee catastrophic coverage to all Americans, and (c) create incentives to keep costs down, instead of driving them up. It's a better proposal for reform. Claiming that it's not a proposal at all is a big fat lie, and you know that as well as I do.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[happythoughts 0]

Years ago, the US and USSR would get into debates on "human rights" violations.

The US would make certain accusations about free speech.

The USSR would insist that human rights included the right
to a job and healthcare.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Years ago, the US and USSR would get into debates on "human rights" violations.

The US would make certain accusations about free speech.

The USSR would insist that human rights included the right
to a job and healthcare.

Absolutely. These are the subjective disagreements about what rights should be. Socialists view rights as what the government can do for you. Libertarians see rights as what the government cannot do to you.

The right to healthcare and right to a job are not what I view as "rights" becauae each places the "responsibility" of PROVIDING health care or employment on somebody else.

Compare the right to free speech. It's yours and mine and not dependent on amyone else. The right to bear arms depends only on somebody manufacturing arms. The right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. The right to remain silent. The right to vote. The right to be free of slavery. The right to due process before a taking.

These are things that place zero responsibility on you or me. None. The right the health care or a job requires somebody else to take on a responsibility.

Don't you see a difference?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Years ago, the US and USSR would get into debates on "human rights" violations.

The US would make certain accusations about free speech.

The USSR would insist that human rights included the right
to a job and healthcare.

Absolutely. These are the subjective disagreements about what rights should be. Socialists view rights as what the government can do for you. Libertarians see rights as what the government cannot do to you.

The right to healthcare and right to a job are not what I view as "rights" becauae each places the "responsibility" of PROVIDING health care or employment on somebody else.

Compare the right to free speech. It's yours and mine and not dependent on amyone else. The right to bear arms depends only on somebody manufacturing arms. The right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. The right to remain silent. The right to vote. The right to be free of slavery. The right to due process before a taking.

These are things that place zero responsibility on you or me. None. The right the health care or a job requires somebody else to take on a responsibility.

Don't you see a difference?

Your right to free speech doesn't require the government to give you a megaphone and the right to bear arms doesn't require the government to give you a gun, so why would a right to work require the government to give you a job?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

why would a right to work require the government to give you a job?

The "right to work" and "right to a job" are different things. The "right to work" means that the government cannot prevent you from seeking a job.

The "right to a job" necessarily means that there must be an employer.

These are different things.

My wife is hotter than your wife.