"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

In your fantasy world.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL.

KMAN,

Why on earth do you engage such a moron?

Mark --just curious--

In the end I believe we will be judged by how we treat the poorest in
society, not the wealthiest. I am pleased with Canada.

Fine by me, just don't try to export your socialism down here, we don't
want
it.


You mean, YOU don't want it.

Our military is not the most powerfull ( I would like to see it better
funded. ) But we have not fely a need to reach out and touch someone in
the way GW has.

And the reason you have a minimal military is because the US protects you,
just like it protected all of western Europe during the Cold War, which
freed you from having to spend more money on defense.

You're welcome...


That would be your opinion, of course.

Our medical system is fine.

Unless you're a teenager needing knee surgery...


Strangely enough, the Canadians who live under the system so oppresively
described by you seem happier and healthier than most Americans.

However, diabetes, broken ankles and heart disease are not a public health
threats, which means that the government has no call to impose the costs
of
treating such individual illnesses on others, because there is no exported
harm that justifies imposing this burden on others.


You don't think so? There are many ways that society pays the price for
illness beyond the obvious issues of contagion and health care costs. The
economic costs of so many Americans sitting at home because they're sick or
injured is astronomical when you consider things like lost productivity,
overinflated payrolls forced upon employers (which transfer those costs to
consumers), etc. When you're a small business owner and your employees are
home sick instead of working, you lose money. So does the national economy.
It's been a long time since I've seen estimates of the figures, but they're
enormous.

"Scott Weiser" who appears to be a wrote in message
[...]
Fine by me, just don't try to export your socialism down here, we don't
want
it.

And just how do you imagine we'd try to export our "socialism"?
And who elected you as the spokesperson for all the "we"?

Parham "bemused, but bound to be none the wiser"

in article , Mark H. Bowen at
wrote on 3/22/05 5:45 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

In your fantasy world.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL.

KMAN,

Why on earth do you engage such a moron?

Mark --just curious--

Scott is a moron. He's just clinicall selfish. Sort of fascinating, really.
It's like witnessing societal devolution.

Frederick observes:
=================
Look at socialization from an individualistic, developmental level. A
human is born totally dependent on its parents. He ages and becomes an
integral part of his family. He matures and becomes an integral part
of his community. At the most integral and mature stage, a person is a
contributing part of the community. As an infant, a person is almost
independent of community, but totally dependent on his parent.
Socialized medicine does not cater or promote infantile sloth and poor
health habits, it signals a mature and integrated society willing to
share strenths and weaknesses.
===================

You're right. As I explained to Scott earlier, I too once bought into
this "rugged individualist", "tough ****" on others, pay-your-own-way
nonsense.

And THEN I GREW UP! That's what most people do developmentally.

Scott's vision is just that -- a vision. It's an abstraction. It's a
theoretical curiousity. BUT IT DOES NOT WORK IN REALITY. Just like the
communism he loves to hate was a theoretical curiousity that did not
work in reality, so too is his version of human, social, and political
relationships an unworkable abstraction.

Cheers.
frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

One can have concern for others without being compelled by law to enable
their bad decision making and behavior. Nobody's asking you to live
without
concern. You can have as much concern as you like. You can give all your
goods to the poor and spend your life serving the poor while wearing
sackcloth and ashes if you like. You may not, however, compel anyone else
to
join you unwillingly. That would be immoral and repugnant. Each individual
gets to choose how much concern he or she shows to others. It's not the
government's duty or authority to compel it.

I disagree. I think there are basic human rights that should be afforded
everyone. This includes education and health care.

Well, that's a reasonable argument to make. But are they basic human rights?

I say no.

In essence, a human right is something that society is compelled only to
respect and not infringe upon. The right to life, the right to liberty, the
right to own a gun, the right to freely exercise religion, even the right to
obtain an abortion...if the service is available. All are things with which
others, in particular the government, may not *interfere.* But in no case is
anyone compelled to participate or facilitate the exercise of those rights.

What you refer to, however, are called "entitlements," not "rights." The
difference is that rights are inherent to a person's humanity, they are not
"provided" to them by someone else. No burden other than the respecting of
the exercise of one's rights is imposed on either society or individuals. No
affirmative act is required by another person to effectuate or enable those
rights.

Education and health care, however, require the active participation of
others if the "right" is to be exercised. In so doing, an affirmative burden
or duty is placed on someone else to provide or facilitate the enjoyment of
that right. In order to exercise the "right" to health care, someone must be
compelled to provide that health care, otherwise the person's "rights" are
"violated." Never has our society imposed an affirmative burden on another
in the exercise of a right by an individual.

There is great danger in doing so, because it leads to impositions on the
rights of those compelled to provide the services, who have a right of free
association...and disassociation.

Should the Catholic doctor be compelled to provide an abortion because not
to do so would violate the "rights" of the woman requesting it?

Should the Jewish teacher be compelled to teach a neo-nazi college student
because the student's "right" to an education outweighs the teacher's right
to not associate with neo-nazis?

Should the gun store owner be compelled to give a gun to anyone who asks
because failing to do so would infringe on a person's right to own a gun? I
think not. You may have a right to own a gun, but no one is compelled to
provide you with a gun as an affirmative act in facilitation of your rights.

The UN believes that housing is a "basic human right," which means that
someone is going to be compelled to provide that housing, perhaps against
their will and likely at their own expense. Such "entitlements" pose a
serious threat to the rights of people who do not choose to facilitate those
"rights."

Medical care and education are fundamentally the same. Using your plan,
anyone who refuses to provide medical care or education is violating the
rights of the person who wishes to exercise the franchise.

That's neither reasonable nor fair, nor would it comport with the
Constitution or the understanding we have of fundamental precepts. And
imagine the flood of lawsuits that would result. It would paralyze the legal
system.

No, you cannot impose an affirmative burden on others in the exercise of
your rights. If you must, it's not a right, it's something else.

Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and
effective
means of showing concern for others.

Indeed. However, being compelled to to contribute to those causes by force
of law is morally repugnant.

Not to me. I'm proud to do it. I'm not proud when government does a poor job
of it, don't get me wrong on that. But I am proud to be a part of a society
that sees education and health care as necessities of life.

Which is fine. What about those who don't want to do it? Are their feelings
to be considered, or should they just shut up and pay for whatever you
happen to think they ought to pay for?


My "utopia" is a land where people get to do what they want, so long as
they
don't harm others

The fact that a system of private sector health care will cater only to
those who can afford to pay means that supporters of said private sector
health care are indeed harming others.

It's a rather large logical leap to blame those who dislike coercive
socialism and favor free-market health care for "harm" that others might
cause themselves through bad planning or misfortune.

Or having the audacity to be born poor.

Again, you finally make a reasoned argument. Should society provide free
health care for poor *children* whose parents cannot afford proper health
care? I'd say yes, because the children are innocent in the matter and have
no control over how they live or plan their lives, and simple compassion
dictates that the innocent be protected. Adults are a different matter
entirely, however.


Talk about repugant. You define selfishness.

Selfishness is a civil right, that's rather the point. You may not admire or
like it, but you don't get to dictate how other people live their lives...at
least down here in the US, which is a *good* thing.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/22/05 11:41 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

One can have concern for others without being compelled by law to enable
their bad decision making and behavior. Nobody's asking you to live
without
concern. You can have as much concern as you like. You can give all your
goods to the poor and spend your life serving the poor while wearing
sackcloth and ashes if you like. You may not, however, compel anyone else
to
join you unwillingly. That would be immoral and repugnant. Each individual
gets to choose how much concern he or she shows to others. It's not the
government's duty or authority to compel it.

I disagree. I think there are basic human rights that should be afforded
everyone. This includes education and health care.

Well, that's a reasonable argument to make. But are they basic human rights?

I say no.

I know. Becuase you are a selfish prig.

In essence, a human right is something that society is compelled only to
respect and not infringe upon. The right to life, the right to liberty, the
right to own a gun, the right to freely exercise religion, even the right to
obtain an abortion...if the service is available. All are things with which
others, in particular the government, may not *interfere.* But in no case is
anyone compelled to participate or facilitate the exercise of those rights.

What you refer to, however, are called "entitlements," not "rights." The
difference is that rights are inherent to a person's humanity, they are not
"provided" to them by someone else. No burden other than the respecting of
the exercise of one's rights is imposed on either society or individuals. No
affirmative act is required by another person to effectuate or enable those
rights.

ROFLMAO

So owning a gun is a fundamental human right, but a child getting medical
care is not? Heehee. Now I know you are just putting me on. Nobody is that
stupid.

Education and health care, however, require the active participation of
others if the "right" is to be exercised. In so doing, an affirmative burden
or duty is placed on someone else to provide or facilitate the enjoyment of
that right. In order to exercise the "right" to health care, someone must be
compelled to provide that health care, otherwise the person's "rights" are
"violated." Never has our society imposed an affirmative burden on another
in the exercise of a right by an individual.

There is great danger in doing so, because it leads to impositions on the
rights of those compelled to provide the services, who have a right of free
association...and disassociation.

Should the Catholic doctor be compelled to provide an abortion because not
to do so would violate the "rights" of the woman requesting it?

Should the Jewish teacher be compelled to teach a neo-nazi college student
because the student's "right" to an education outweighs the teacher's right
to not associate with neo-nazis?

Should the gun store owner be compelled to give a gun to anyone who asks
because failing to do so would infringe on a person's right to own a gun? I
think not. You may have a right to own a gun, but no one is compelled to
provide you with a gun as an affirmative act in facilitation of your rights.

The UN believes that housing is a "basic human right," which means that
someone is going to be compelled to provide that housing, perhaps against
their will and likely at their own expense. Such "entitlements" pose a
serious threat to the rights of people who do not choose to facilitate those
"rights."

Medical care and education are fundamentally the same. Using your plan,
anyone who refuses to provide medical care or education is violating the
rights of the person who wishes to exercise the franchise.

Er. No.

It means as a society agreeing that education and health care should be
available to all. If not infringing upon the religified is something
important to a certain society, but they still believe that health care is a
basic human right, then they will negotiate the situation.

In Canada most people think of health care as a basic human right. But a
doctor who doesn't want to perform abortions doesn't get forced into the
job.

This affirmative burden nonsense is so...so...goofy!

Any society will have "affirmative burdens" all over the place.

That's neither reasonable nor fair, nor would it comport with the
Constitution

As you are aware, I don't give a fig about that.

or the understanding we have of fundamental precepts. And
imagine the flood of lawsuits that would result. It would paralyze the legal
system.

No, you cannot impose an affirmative burden on others in the exercise of
your rights. If you must, it's not a right, it's something else.

Whatever you want to call it, I believe in a society where a child can get
help when they are sick and can go to school no matter what the financial
status of the family they are born into.

I am 100% comfortable with viewing health care and education as fundamental
human rights, and I will gladly accept the "affirmative burden" that comes
with it.

Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and
effective
means of showing concern for others.

Indeed. However, being compelled to to contribute to those causes by force
of law is morally repugnant.

Not to me. I'm proud to do it. I'm not proud when government does a poor job
of it, don't get me wrong on that. But I am proud to be a part of a society
that sees education and health care as necessities of life.

Which is fine. What about those who don't want to do it? Are their feelings
to be considered, or should they just shut up and pay for whatever you
happen to think they ought to pay for?

Selfish prigs are a part of every society, and you can't worry much about
their feelings, or you'll soon have a society of paranoid freaks walking
around with concealed weapons ready to shoot at their own shadow.

My "utopia" is a land where people get to do what they want, so long as
they
don't harm others

The fact that a system of private sector health care will cater only to
those who can afford to pay means that supporters of said private sector
health care are indeed harming others.

It's a rather large logical leap to blame those who dislike coercive
socialism and favor free-market health care for "harm" that others might
cause themselves through bad planning or misfortune.

Or having the audacity to be born poor.

Again, you finally make a reasoned argument. Should society provide free
health care for poor *children* whose parents cannot afford proper health
care? I'd say yes, because the children are innocent in the matter and have
no control over how they live or plan their lives, and simple compassion
dictates that the innocent be protected. Adults are a different matter
entirely, however.

Uhoh.

If you provide health care for children of poor families, that's placing an
affirmative burden on the other families. Gasp. Scott's a commie! A pinko! I
knew it!

Talk about repugant. You define selfishness.

Selfishness is a civil right, that's rather the point. You may not admire or
like it, but you don't get to dictate how other people live their lives...at
least down here in the US, which is a *good* thing.

It's ugly. And so are you :-/

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


Ah. So you start holding a child accountable for their own future
starting
with infancy.

No, I hold the parents accountable.

But the child suffers.

Then perhaps the state should take custody of the child, award custody to
someone better able to raise the child, and garnish the parent's wages to
pay for the child's care...after eliminating any welfare payments to the
parents to stimulate them to get a job.

Born to parents who could not afford to send you to school?
Tough titties for you, this ain't the land of opportunity.

You confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

No, I don't, actually.

There is no equality of opportunity for a child born into a poor family who
cannot access education or health care.

Wrong. In this country, opportunities are abundant. There are millions uponn
millions of success stories of poor people who have persevered and
succeeded. That's WHY a million people a month illegally enter this country.

In the Sudan, there are no opportunities for education or health care, but
in North America there are opportunities everywhere. All a parent has to do
is go and seek it out and resolve to be successful.

America is indeed the "Land of
Opportunity,"
but the opportunities are not all positive opportunities. You have an
equal
opportunity to FAIL as well as succeed. That's what causes people to
strive
to excel and advance.

As Linda Seebach said once, "The only way to make everyone equal is to
squash everyone flat."

You can't have an equal opportunity to anything if you are hungry,
uneducated, and without access to health care.

Sure you can. Go to a shelter, get a meal, go find a Catholic hospital and
seek medical care and go find a job to pay for your education.

Parents are not stimulated to encourage, assist, stimulate, enlighten,
browbeat, badger, threaten and otherwise require scholarship on the part
of
their children if they see no future for them because the dole is all they
know. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he
can feed the world.

How ironic, to use the "teach him to fish" analogy while saying that poor
people should not have access to education.

I didn't say they shouldn't have access to education, I said that public
education is a dismal failure and that nobody should *expect* a free public
education as a "right" to be paid for by somebody else.

There are nearly unlimited educational opportunities out there, even for the
very poor, that either cost them nothing (charitable institutions) or merely
require some nominal input to qualify. There are vocational programs
sponsored by industry specifically targeted at the disadvantaged explicitly
to teach them a valuable skill that will be of use to the industry.

The opportunities are everywhere. All one needs to do is reach out and grab
one.

If you want to learn to fish, go to the dock and demonstrate to a ship
captain that you are eager and willing to work hard in exchange for his
teaching you how to fish. Quid pro quo. As simple as that.

The worst thing about a liberal arts degree is that some of the graduates
might be capable of thinking.

True, but sadly, almost universally, they fail to realize that potential,
largely thanks to the pervasive leftist/liberal apologetics of failure and
muddled thinking taught to them on most of our college campuses.

Rare indeed is the student who is able to rise above the leftist
propaganda
and demagogary to reach a state of enlightenment and understanding, and
every one who does is universally a conservative thinker.

In your fantasy world.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL.

His college grades were much higher than Kerry's, and slightly more than
half the voting population of the country find him to be sufficiently
intelligent to be President of the United States.

Pity we can't say the same about you.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Mark H. Bowen wrote:


"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

In your fantasy world.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL.

KMAN,

Why on earth do you engage such a moron?

Well, evidently he's smarter than you are...

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser