On 22-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And we should take YOUR word for it because....???

Because I actually have the insurance you claim is illegal
and impossible to get.

You claim to be a journalist and editor and you don't have
any concern for the truth. Perhaps the AP writer went
to the same school of dickhead journalism that you did.

Mike

On 22-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Because poking Netwits like you through the bars of your cage is so much
fun!

Exactly - you play games without any concern for truth. Give it
up asshole.

Mike

On 22-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

and slightly more than
half the voting population of the country find him to be sufficiently
intelligent to be President of the United States.

Slightly more than half of those that bothered to vote. The net is
a minority.

The fact that that many Americans consider Bush to be sufficiently
intelligent says more about how stupid those Americans are than
how smart Bush is.

Mike

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

What you mean, of course, is the idea that you must save another person
(e.g. throw them a life presever) is an affirmative burden on you, and
therefore the starting point on the slippery slope to gulags and other
nasty commie stuff.

Well, YEAH!

Mark

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/22/05 11:57 PM:

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.

Wow, for a guy who seems so freaked out about freedom, you are a bit of a
control freak when it comes to other people!

Am I? Or am I merely attempting to elicit some sort of reasoned argument out
of you?


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.

You are hopeless if you really believe that.

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.

A child who grows up in poverty does not have equality of opportunity with a
child from a wealthy family. If you think otherwise, you are insane.

I'll grant you that a child of poverty may not have the same quality of
opportunities available to the children of the rich, but that does not mean
the opportunities do not nonetheless abound. No one has "equal opportunity"
with everyone else, rich or poor, because the major part of "opportunity" is
the individual's willingness to seize it and make it work, in spite of
obstacles. In fact, in most cases, it is the obstacles themselves that
stimulate the drive to succeed that results in success. Many's the rich
child who's failed in business because he hasn't learned how to overcome
adversity. And many's the poor child who has succeeded beyond everyone's
wildest expectations because of a resolve to overcome adversity.

Understanding access to education and health care as fundamental human
rights helps to give those born into a poverty a chance.

But is "access" inevitably the same thing as "entitlement?"


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.

That gives you an equal opportunity to someone who is born into a wealthy
family, never has to know a hungry belly, has tutors, can afford any tuition
they require, and does not have to work while studying?

It gives you adequate opportunity to succeed if you're willing to fight for
it. Getting everything as a gift is not, contrary to your assertion, a
guarantee of success. In fact, in many cases, it's a guarantee of failure.
Just look at Paris Hilton if you don't believe me. Most of the great
entrepeneurs of this country weren't rich to begin with, and many of them
started out as "poor children." The difference between them and a ghetto
child is primarily an unswerving resolve not to be bound to poverty.

FYI, not every
community has a Catholic hospital around the corner.

Almost every community has a federally-funded hospital at which even the
indigent can receive emergency care. If there's not one in that community,
then perhaps it's time to move to a community that has more charitable
resources available for the poor.

You are living in a
dreamland of selfish ignorance.

Nope. I'm just not buying your "the poor are helpless victims" mentality.


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.

If it's not a right, then it doesn't have to be provided, and selfish prigs
like yourself obviously aren't going to support it.

So what? If you think it's important, then YOU support it or provide it.


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.

I don't think that I child born into poverty should have such vastly
different opportunities than those afforded children born into wealth.

Then adopt a poor child and give him better opportunities.


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.

LOL. You forget, the rich people have already overfished the stock and
there's no jobs.

Then take up another line of work and do the same thing. We need ditch
diggers, trash collectors and custodians too. Not everybody can be the CEO
of Ford.


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.

You didn't really answer the question.

Sure I did. You just didn't understand the answer.

FYI, money and a name can buy a lot of things, including college grades.

Do you have any credible evidence that this is the case?


--
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

You mean, YOU don't want it.

Indeed, me and 200 million others.


When you can pull that number out of a filing cabinet instead of your ass,
I'll believe it.

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.

Nope, a fact.


Sorry, *wanting* something to be true doesn't *make* it true, it's still
just an opinion. But I'm sure it makes you feel better, and that's what
counts.


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

And they will continue to do so right up until the entire system collapses
into chaos. Nothing surprising about people getting freebies not
complaining
about it...till the gravy train derails.


Kind of like the way the American system has derailed for so many of *it's*
citizens, I guess?

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.

And who is responsible for inflated payrolls? The government.


Huh? Payrolls get inflated because businesses don't want to lose their
profit margin, government has nothing to do with it.

When you're a small business owner and your employees are
home sick instead of working, you lose money.

So what? That's just part of the cost of doing business. Why should
government bail out the business owner? Why should I? If the business
owner
fails to properly plan for sick employees, how is that MY problem and why
should I be required to pay for that employee's health care in order to
protect the business owner? If the business owner feels the employee is
essential, then the employer should purchase health insurance to keep him
healthy, not the government or the rest of us.


Again... huh? Who's talking about government bailouts? That's just the
cost of doing business? Sure... to you. You're the one paying for inflated
prices. If the business owner needs to purchase health insurance to keep
his employees healthy, it costs him extra. And you're the one who bears
that additional cost through price increases. Duh.

If his business fails because he plans and manages badly, why, that just
provides an opportunity for some new businessman to try to do it better.

So does the national economy.
It's been a long time since I've seen estimates of the figures, but
they're
enormous.

Not really. You falsely presume that the economic impacts of absenteeism
are
the responsibility of the government to ameliorate or prevent. That
responsibility lies with the employee and the employer and no one else.


No, I don't. I'm simply saying that poor health care has secondary impacts
that, among other things, manifest themselves in higher prices. Higher
prices that *you're* going to pay. You don't want government to step in and
help keep the economy more efficient? Fine, but it'll cost you.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/23/05 7:21 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/22/05 11:57 PM:

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.

Wow, for a guy who seems so freaked out about freedom, you are a bit of a
control freak when it comes to other people!

Am I?

Ooo yes.

Or am I merely attempting to elicit some sort of reasoned argument out
of you?

That's just another way of saying that you are irritated that all your own
arguments are easily boiled down to extreme self-centered selfishness.

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.

You are hopeless if you really believe that.

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.

A child who grows up in poverty does not have equality of opportunity with a
child from a wealthy family. If you think otherwise, you are insane.

I'll grant you that a child of poverty may not have the same quality of
opportunities available to the children of the rich

Gee, welcome to reality.

but that does not mean
the opportunities do not nonetheless abound. No one has "equal opportunity"
with everyone else, rich or poor, because the major part of "opportunity" is
the individual's willingness to seize it and make it work, in spite of
obstacles. In fact, in most cases, it is the obstacles themselves that
stimulate the drive to succeed that results in success. Many's the rich
child who's failed in business because he hasn't learned how to overcome
adversity. And many's the poor child who has succeeded beyond everyone's
wildest expectations because of a resolve to overcome adversity.

It's all about levelling the playing field. That's a lot of what having a
society is all about Scotty. Making sure that every child - regardless of
family situation - can access education and healthcare is fundamental to
giving kids a chance at the type of life others are simply born into.

Understanding access to education and health care as fundamental human
rights helps to give those born into a poverty a chance.

But is "access" inevitably the same thing as "entitlement?"

I would be fine with the word entitlement. We are talking about children. A
society that does not believe children should be entitled to education and
health care is a society deserving of implosion.

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.

That gives you an equal opportunity to someone who is born into a wealthy
family, never has to know a hungry belly, has tutors, can afford any tuition
they require, and does not have to work while studying?

It gives you adequate opportunity to succeed if you're willing to fight for
it.

A child does not understand those grand concepts Scott, especially a child
that can't read or write and their goal is to not be hungry.

Getting everything as a gift is not, contrary to your assertion, a
guarantee of success. In fact, in many cases, it's a guarantee of failure.
Just look at Paris Hilton if you don't believe me. Most of the great
entrepeneurs of this country weren't rich to begin with, and many of them
started out as "poor children." The difference between them and a ghetto
child is primarily an unswerving resolve not to be bound to poverty.

Paris Hilton? Is she starving? What are you talking about?

Where does a child acquire an "unswerving resolve not to be bound to
poverty?" is all they know is poverty? Geez you are dense. If they are
illiterate and sickly, you really think they can just will themselves into
Harvard and onto the presidency?

FYI, not every
community has a Catholic hospital around the corner.

Almost every community has a federally-funded hospital at which even the
indigent can receive emergency care. If there's not one in that community,
then perhaps it's time to move to a community that has more charitable
resources available for the poor.

Yes, the infant should pack his or her bag and crawl to the next county.

You are living in a
dreamland of selfish ignorance.

Nope. I'm just not buying your "the poor are helpless victims" mentality.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I believe in a hand up, not a handout.

Making sure that every child can go to school and get treatment if they are
sick is not about a "poor are helpless victims" mentality. It's about giving
a child a fighting chance at a better quality of life.

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.

If it's not a right, then it doesn't have to be provided, and selfish prigs
like yourself obviously aren't going to support it.

So what? If you think it's important, then YOU support it or provide it.

It's not possible for a society to provide education and health care to all
children if selfish prigs can opt out.

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.

I don't think that I child born into poverty should have such vastly
different opportunities than those afforded children born into wealth.

Then adopt a poor child and give him better opportunities.

I'd rather keep the child with their parents, and give them access to
education and health care so they can have a chance to make their own
opportunities.

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.

LOL. You forget, the rich people have already overfished the stock and
there's no jobs.

Then take up another line of work and do the same thing. We need ditch
diggers, trash collectors and custodians too. Not everybody can be the CEO
of Ford.

Is there a shortage of ditch diggers, trash collectors, and custodians?

I'm not arguing that no one should do those jobs. I'm arguing that an infant
should not start out in life without access to the basic tools they will
need to have a chance at a quality of life that is easily available to those
born into wealth.

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.

You didn't really answer the question.

Sure I did. You just didn't understand the answer.

Sure I did. It was a dodge.

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

Yes or no.

FYI, money and a name can buy a lot of things, including college grades.

Do you have any credible evidence that this is the case?

Every time he opens his mouth - even with countless expert advisors to write
his speeches and help him look less stupid - it's obvious he'd barely pass
grade eight on his own merits.

KMAN rightfully observes:
==============
LOL. There are societal consequences to such a "screw you" approach. No
wonder you are a gun nut. Your utopia would obviously be everyone
living in
a self-sustaining dwelling with a giant electrified fence to protect
them
from having to be in contact with other people or even - gasp - where
people
might care about each other.
===============

KMAN, as I type, I'm listening to an interesting CBC radio documentary
about Karl Polanyi. Polanyi's work is witnessing a resurgence as, for
example, "The Great Transformation" (1944) examined free market systems
and natural social reactions against such systems.

An interesting summary from
http://keithrankin.co.nz/nzpr1998_4Polanyi.html

"The social anthropologist understood that humans are fundamentally
cooperative beings, and that human societies naturally seek to form
institutions that confer social and economic protection. Protection
means supporting producers who are a part of one's own society. And
protection means security, including social security.

Unlike protection which is a natural human impulse, the market system
is an artificial construct of the human intellect. It eschews
protection and emphasises discipline. Competition is about discipline
and conformity, not freedom. The tyranny of the self-regulating market
can only become the central organising mechanism if it is intentionally
imposed on society by a government with dubious democratic credentials,
and can only survive for any length of time if such a government
resists the spontaneous human impulse towards protection.

Economic liberals, contrary to the way they portray themselves, are not
believers in small government. They are not akin to anarchists, as Marx
saw them. Rather they adopt a view of government that differs
fundamentally from that of social democrats. Economic liberals believe,
following Jeremy Bentham, that government means the "ministry of
police" (read Treasury in today's parlance) and not the "ministry of
welfare"

I doubt whether Scott Weiser has ever given thought to "The tyranny of
the self-regulating market can only become the central organising
mechanism if it is intentionally imposed on society by a
government...."?

Cheers,
Wilf

Scott Weiser wrote:
snip
: Yup, because you expect everybody else to pay for your bad driving habits
: and the expensive medical consequences. What if others don't want to pay for
: it? Why should you have a right to expect them to do so?

Wow... colorado must be a red state... course, Scott, "we" already pay for
someone's bad driving habits... Lets say you are in the left lane doing 55mph
in your Hummer while everyone else is doing 65mph. A motorcycle tries to pass
but his vision is blocked by the gleeming chrome of your Hummer's rhino bars
and he falls off. He'll be taken to the Hospital, and they will treat him
regardless of his insurance status, they have no choice, it's the law. The
hospital won't go and get him, but if he's brought there either by a passerby
or ambulance, he'll be treated (there was a case here in Chicago where someone
was shot in front of a hospital and they would not go get him to treat him...
as they are not required to , but cannot turn away anyone brought to them).

The hospital will try to collect from him, but they may or may not manage to
do so if he's uninsured.

Anyway, your insurance company has a contract with the hospital and they are
charged a reduced rate, whereas the un-insured guy on the bike gets charged
more so he may actually subsidize your next visit for whatever pains you,
which is paid for by insurance.

"... Because of these high health care costs, Ford spends more each year on
health care for employees and retirees than we spend on steel! ..."

As these costs continue to rise, it places U.S. jobs in jepardy. As Ford
recently pointed out, they spend more on health care than they do on steel,
while in Japan, with nationalized health care, Toyota doesn't need to do
the same. Google that above quote from Ford...

What happens when it gets to the point that private industry can no longer
afford it? What if every Ford is made in Windsor, eh?

: I truly believe the folks in public housing ( oh
: ,, We don't have a large homeless problem in my community. ) will get
: the same care. That is what reflects the values of my community.

: Yeah, "take from everybody and give to me" values.

Generally speaking, the rich tend to have a pretty good way of having the
country look after their interests... either by receiving no bid contracts
or various tax incentives... and the government makes sure theres plenty
of gas available for Hummers everywhere...

snip

: 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.

It would actually be called compassion... I guess your not Christian but thats
ok, you live in a red state, I live in a blue state...

Hey, make sure next time you visit your doctor or hospital, you tell them you
don't want the reduced insurance rate for whatever treatment you are having,
but that you want to pay full price because nobody is gonna subsidize you!

snip

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come across
him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown,
as there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others.

Mark

What you mean, of course, is the idea that you must save another person
(e.g. throw them a life presever) is an affirmative burden on you, and
therefore the starting point on the slippery slope to gulags and other nasty
commie stuff.

Precisely correct. Your choice of whether to save someone or not is your
choice. Government cannot mandate that you do so, particularly if it puts
you at risk. Whether you can live with yourself is, of course, a moral and
ethical dilemma you will have to deal with. Also, society may choose to
reject your reasons for not helping and deem you to be selfish or cowardly
and withhold approval and heap upon you opprobrium, but it may not compel
you to act under penalty of law.

The danger of "mandatory" rescue laws is that when the law requires others
to put themselves at risk to save someone, the chances are greatly increased
that the government will decide to regulate dangerous activities so as to
"balance" the risks to rescuers with you "right" to endanger yourself.

This leads to things like the closure of whitewater venues deemed "too
dangerous."

Again, be careful what you wish for.

--
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 KMAN wrote:


"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Scott thinks:
===============
The link between the harm of uncontrolled fire and the extraction of
money
from the public is quite direct, and the risks are shared by all
persons in
the community equally because everyone is placed at risk by an
uncontrolled
fire.

Nonsense Scott!

I have my own firefighting equipment and can protect my own property and I'd
never be responsible for starting an uncontrolled fire! Why should I have to
pay because people like you are careless and can't take care of their own
property!

I do too. Several thousands of dollars worth, in fact. However, most people
don't, and don't have the skills required to effectively fight a fire even
if they do. Also, they may not be around when a fire starts and therefore
will not be able to douse the fire before others are harmed.

Thus, it is reasonable and prudent to maintain a cadre of properly trained
and equipped personnel at public expense.

--
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 Michael Daly wrote:


On 22-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And we should take YOUR word for it because....???

Because I actually have the insurance you claim is illegal
and impossible to get.

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.


You claim to be a journalist and editor and you don't have
any concern for the truth.

This is the Usenet, where truth is a particularly rare commodity. It's not
"journalism." This is a debate where I'm free to assert anything I like.
It's up to you to prove me wrong if you can.

Perhaps the AP writer went
to the same school of dickhead journalism that you did.

Or perhaps you're lying, or are merely too stupid to know what your policy
actually covers.

--
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 KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/23/05 12:23 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

No, because unlike you, I have a reasoned argument to support my assertion.

No, your just a selfish prig who for some reason feels the need to try and
justiry your selfishness through goofy arguments. Do you actually experience
guilt, or what is it that drives you to such foolishness?

Nope, no guilt whatsoever. Remember to keep telling yourself, "It's just the
Usenet, not reality."


Heehee. Now I know you are just putting me on. Nobody is that
stupid.

And yet you're the one who doesn't have the wit to formulate a rational
rebuttal. Stupid is as stupid does.

You're right, I can't think of a "rational rebuttal" to someone who thinks
having guns is a fundamental right but an infant who is dying should fend
for themselves.

Well, that just goes to show that you can't think at all, since I've never
made any such suggestion.



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.

Sorry, but once again, anything that imposes on others a burden or duty to
affirmatively act in furtherance of the exercise of the "right" is not a
right, it is, at best, an "entitlement," which is an entirely different
thing.

Any society can declare whatever rights they want to declare.

True. Stalin declared that nobody he didn't like had a right to live, but
that doesn't make it moral or ethical.

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.

What about the doctor who doesn't want to treat the indigent patient? Does
he violate that person's "rights" by refusing to do so? Your definition of
"rights" says yes.

Sounds good to me. What kind of a dickhead doctor would let someone die
because they are poor?

Who knows? It doesn't matter. What you propose is slavery.


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

Only because your fractional wit is incapable of understanding the
subtleties of my argument.

It's not subtle at all.

One incapable of understanding the subtleties would be unlikely to recognize
subtlety.


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

Indeed, but are the underlying precepts that impose those burdens
characterized as "rights" which accrue to an individual, or are they instead
merely societal obligations created as a part of the social contract under
which people live in community, according to some method of ratifying those
obligations, such as democratic voting?

I say the latter.

You have yet to rationally explain how my thesis is wrong.

Your thesis, in English, is nothing more than "Scotty wants certain things
to be rights and other things not to be rights." That's all there is to it.

How erudite.


You like guns, so you want the right to carry one.

Er, no, I HAVE the right to carry one.

You don't give a damn
about children in poverty,

Er, no, I merely require you to engage in some small degree of rational
thought in supporting your argument.

so you don't want them to have the right to
education or health care.

Er, no, I merely question whether such a "right" exists and if so, what are
the unintended consequences.


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.

Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness
over the rule of law.

I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it
doesn't meet your needs.

Really? How so?


If some "rule of law" says a child born into poverty should die because they
can't get health care, then I say to hell with that rule of law and the
society that would support it.

But I've never suggested that happen. In fact, I've explicitly stated that
society should provide health care to indigent children. So, what's your
beef?


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.

Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that burden
on others without their consent.

In some societies it is simply something people want.

Which people? The Hutus wanted the Tutsis dead. Is that okay with you?


You don't seem to understand that not everyone views helping other people -
by supporting fundamental rights such as access to education and healthcare
- as a burden.

Er, no, you don't understand that the issue is not what some people think,
its the deeper, more subtle issues of "rights" and public policy that are
merely under discussion. That some people don't mind bearing the burden is
not a justification for imposing the burden on those who do.

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 :-/

And therein lies the difference between us: I respect and treasure
individual liberty and freedom, while you have no problem forcibly imposing
your worldview on others. It's only a short journey from where you are now
to the Gulags and the Highway of Bones.

ROFL.

I'm sure Stalin would agree with you.


I want innocent children to get medicine if they are sick and have a chance
to learn how to read.

Then give them that chance.

But, you have yet to produce any rational argument as to why others should
be required to do so.


You are already a prisoner of your selfish beliefs.

Not really. This is just a Usenet debate. You appear to be a prisoner of
your own prejudices and rhetoric.


--
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 Michael Daly wrote:


On 22-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

and slightly more than
half the voting population of the country find him to be sufficiently
intelligent to be President of the United States.

Slightly more than half of those that bothered to vote. The net is
a minority.

If you don't vote, you necessarily accept the judgment of those who do.


The fact that that many Americans consider Bush to be sufficiently
intelligent says more about how stupid those Americans are than
how smart Bush is.

And we should believe you because...???

--
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 Franklin wrote:

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.

And who is responsible for inflated payrolls? The government.


Huh? Payrolls get inflated because businesses don't want to lose their
profit margin, government has nothing to do with it.

Wrong, Government mandates minimum wages and imposes payroll taxes and
forbids employers from shedding employees who are a net drain on their
business under, among other laws, the ADA.


When you're a small business owner and your employees are
home sick instead of working, you lose money.

So what? That's just part of the cost of doing business. Why should
government bail out the business owner? Why should I? If the business
owner
fails to properly plan for sick employees, how is that MY problem and why
should I be required to pay for that employee's health care in order to
protect the business owner? If the business owner feels the employee is
essential, then the employer should purchase health insurance to keep him
healthy, not the government or the rest of us.


Again... huh? Who's talking about government bailouts? That's just the
cost of doing business? Sure... to you. You're the one paying for inflated
prices. If the business owner needs to purchase health insurance to keep
his employees healthy, it costs him extra. And you're the one who bears
that additional cost through price increases.

But that's voluntary. I'm free not to buy his product if I don't like the
price.

If his business fails because he plans and manages badly, why, that just
provides an opportunity for some new businessman to try to do it better.

So does the national economy.
It's been a long time since I've seen estimates of the figures, but
they're
enormous.

Not really. You falsely presume that the economic impacts of absenteeism
are
the responsibility of the government to ameliorate or prevent. That
responsibility lies with the employee and the employer and no one else.


No, I don't. I'm simply saying that poor health care has secondary impacts
that, among other things, manifest themselves in higher prices. Higher
prices that *you're* going to pay. You don't want government to step in and
help keep the economy more efficient? Fine, but it'll cost you.

Fine by me, so long as government stays out of it *entirely.* Problem is
that it doesn't, which means that the free market is always skewed by
government intervention.


--
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

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

I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come
across
him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown,
as there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others.

Mark

What you mean, of course, is the idea that you must save another person
(e.g. throw them a life presever) is an affirmative burden on you, and
therefore the starting point on the slippery slope to gulags and other
nasty
commie stuff.

Precisely correct. Your choice of whether to save someone or not is your
choice. Government cannot mandate that you do so, particularly if it puts
you at risk. Whether you can live with yourself is, of course, a moral and
ethical dilemma you will have to deal with. Also, society may choose to
reject your reasons for not helping and deem you to be selfish or cowardly
and withhold approval and heap upon you opprobrium, but it may not compel
you to act under penalty of law.

The danger of "mandatory" rescue laws is that when the law requires others
to put themselves at risk to save someone, the chances are greatly
increased
that the government will decide to regulate dangerous activities so as to
"balance" the risks to rescuers with you "right" to endanger yourself.

This leads to things like the closure of whitewater venues deemed "too
dangerous."

Again, be careful what you wish for.

My example was throwing someone a life preserver.

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


"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Scott thinks:
===============
The link between the harm of uncontrolled fire and the extraction of
money
from the public is quite direct, and the risks are shared by all
persons in
the community equally because everyone is placed at risk by an
uncontrolled
fire.

Nonsense Scott!

I have my own firefighting equipment and can protect my own property and
I'd
never be responsible for starting an uncontrolled fire! Why should I have
to
pay because people like you are careless and can't take care of their own
property!

I do too. Several thousands of dollars worth, in fact. However, most
people
don't, and don't have the skills required to effectively fight a fire even
if they do. Also, they may not be around when a fire starts and therefore
will not be able to douse the fire before others are harmed.

Thus, it is reasonable and prudent to maintain a cadre of properly trained
and equipped personnel at public expense.

No way! Why should I have to pay for it! I also have people hired to protect
my property 24 hours a day. I don't need the public fire department service!
I should be able to opt out! You commie!

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

but that does not mean
the opportunities do not nonetheless abound. No one has "equal opportunity"
with everyone else, rich or poor, because the major part of "opportunity" is
the individual's willingness to seize it and make it work, in spite of
obstacles. In fact, in most cases, it is the obstacles themselves that
stimulate the drive to succeed that results in success. Many's the rich
child who's failed in business because he hasn't learned how to overcome
adversity. And many's the poor child who has succeeded beyond everyone's
wildest expectations because of a resolve to overcome adversity.

It's all about levelling the playing field.

When you "level the field," you remove all the peaks to be conquered and you
drive the opportunities to excel into the ground. Level playing fields are
for soccer, not life. It is the adversities we face in life that cause us to
succeed. The lower on the mountain you start, the greater the reward you
reap when you reach the summit. Helicoptering people to the top of Everest
in order to grant grandma in her wheelchair a "level playing field" devalues
the struggle of actually climbing the mountain.

Not everyone is destined for fame and fortune, and it's ridiculous to try to
ensure that every child will be successful. One of the worst things we do to
our children is the systematic, socialistic excision of competition from
education. From soccer leagues that don't keep score to banning running
races because somebody has to lose, this anti-competetive "level playing
field" agenda is destroying the motivation for innovation and excellence
that helps the poor become not-poor.

That's a lot of what having a
society is all about Scotty. Making sure that every child - regardless of
family situation - can access education and healthcare is fundamental to
giving kids a chance at the type of life others are simply born into.

The question is how far down that road society can go without destroying
itself through "leveling" everyone out.

As I said, my argument is not about children and their opportunities, and I
have agreed that society has an obligation to support innocent children. My
argument is against socialized medicine for adults, and I've stated that
public education frequently fails to provide an adequate education for many
children *because* it is socialized, and that private education is far more
effective because it provides the stimulus to succeed that public education
does not.


Understanding access to education and health care as fundamental human
rights helps to give those born into a poverty a chance.

But is "access" inevitably the same thing as "entitlement?"

I would be fine with the word entitlement. We are talking about children. A
society that does not believe children should be entitled to education and
health care is a society deserving of implosion.

Fine. Now, by calling it an "entitlement," you remove the offensive burden
of calling it a "right" because an "entitlement" is something that the
government can be compelled, by it's bosses, the people, to provide. The
distinction is important because the offending party in any failure to
provide an "entitlement" is the body which "entitled" people to claim the
benefit, not the individual who is compelled to do something in support of
another individual's "rights."

However, I do warn that the "do it for the children" argument is a
dangerous one indeed. I believe more is required to justify legislation than
merely "do it for the children." There needs to be some overall social
benefit that outweighs the potential negative effects of the legislation.

That gives you an equal opportunity to someone who is born into a wealthy
family, never has to know a hungry belly, has tutors, can afford any tuition
they require, and does not have to work while studying?

It gives you adequate opportunity to succeed if you're willing to fight for
it.

A child does not understand those grand concepts Scott, especially a child
that can't read or write and their goal is to not be hungry.

It's the parent's duty to fight for their children's future.


Getting everything as a gift is not, contrary to your assertion, a
guarantee of success. In fact, in many cases, it's a guarantee of failure.
Just look at Paris Hilton if you don't believe me. Most of the great
entrepeneurs of this country weren't rich to begin with, and many of them
started out as "poor children." The difference between them and a ghetto
child is primarily an unswerving resolve not to be bound to poverty.

Paris Hilton? Is she starving? What are you talking about?

Figure it out.

Where does a child acquire an "unswerving resolve not to be bound to
poverty?"

From their parents.

is all they know is poverty?

Nobody can live in North America these days and "only know poverty." Every
human being on this continent is deluged with the knowledge of prosperity
and success.

Geez you are dense. If they are
illiterate and sickly, you really think they can just will themselves into
Harvard and onto the presidency?

They'd better try. Many have, and many have succeeded. If you go to far in
"leveling they playing field" children will have no reason to succeed on
their own. This is not to say that that poor children do not deserve support
and encouragement towards success.


FYI, not every
community has a Catholic hospital around the corner.

Almost every community has a federally-funded hospital at which even the
indigent can receive emergency care. If there's not one in that community,
then perhaps it's time to move to a community that has more charitable
resources available for the poor.

Yes, the infant should pack his or her bag and crawl to the next county.

No, the parents should.


You are living in a
dreamland of selfish ignorance.

Nope. I'm just not buying your "the poor are helpless victims" mentality.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I believe in a hand up, not a handout.

Making sure that every child can go to school and get treatment if they are
sick is not about a "poor are helpless victims" mentality. It's about giving
a child a fighting chance at a better quality of life.

I don't disagree. I'm more concerned about adults.


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.

If it's not a right, then it doesn't have to be provided, and selfish prigs
like yourself obviously aren't going to support it.

So what? If you think it's important, then YOU support it or provide it.

It's not possible for a society to provide education and health care to all
children if selfish prigs can opt out.

Ah, now we finally come to the real issue. Why is it "not possible" for
society to provide these benefits if everyone doesn't participate? Is this
really true? I think not. For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools. But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.

And then there's charity. A huge number of hospitals in both countries are
private Catholic hospitals funded by the Catholic church and they provide
free health care for the indigent. There's lots of charitable foundations
and organizations, and private donors who would very likely be able to
provide necessary medical care to indigent children without the
participation of the government...at lower expense to the public.

So, it is self-evidently not true that it is "not possible for a society to
provide education and health care to all children if selfish prigs can opt
out."

Moreover, your claim is simply untrue. There are lots of people who "opt
out" of paying taxes, including, interestingly, the poor themselves, and yet
society continues to provide services to them.

What your claim really means is that YOU don't like the idea that other
people can "opt out" because it offends YOUR sense of fairness and
socialistic egalitarianism. You think that everybody should suffer equally
on that "level playing field." Unfortunately, even in your Canadian Utopia,
not everybody plays on the same field or pays their "fair share." That's
life.

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.

I don't think that I child born into poverty should have such vastly
different opportunities than those afforded children born into wealth.

Then adopt a poor child and give him better opportunities.

I'd rather keep the child with their parents, and give them access to
education and health care so they can have a chance to make their own
opportunities.

Feel free to open up your wallet and adopt the whole family if you like.


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.

LOL. You forget, the rich people have already overfished the stock and
there's no jobs.

Then take up another line of work and do the same thing. We need ditch
diggers, trash collectors and custodians too. Not everybody can be the CEO
of Ford.

Is there a shortage of ditch diggers, trash collectors, and custodians?

Evidently, given the fact that a million illegal immigrants a month flood
into the country to take these jobs.


I'm not arguing that no one should do those jobs. I'm arguing that an infant
should not start out in life without access to the basic tools they will
need to have a chance at a quality of life that is easily available to those
born into wealth.

And yet you've not demonstrated that society is unable to provide those
benefits at private expense rather than public expense. Private operations
are *always* more efficiently and economically run than government
operations.


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.

You didn't really answer the question.

Sure I did. You just didn't understand the answer.

Sure I did. It was a dodge.

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

Yes or no.

Asked and answered.


FYI, money and a name can buy a lot of things, including college grades.

Do you have any credible evidence that this is the case?

Every time he opens his mouth - even with countless expert advisors to write
his speeches and help him look less stupid - it's obvious he'd barely pass
grade eight on his own merits.

And yet he graduated from an Ivy-league college, flew fighter jets in the
military (which I'm betting you've never done), was the governor of Texas
and is now the President of the United States.

I'd have to use history as the metric, as opposed to your biased and
ignorant proclamations.

--
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

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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/23/05 12:23 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

No, because unlike you, I have a reasoned argument to support my
assertion.

No, your just a selfish prig who for some reason feels the need to try
and
justiry your selfishness through goofy arguments. Do you actually
experience
guilt, or what is it that drives you to such foolishness?

Nope, no guilt whatsoever. Remember to keep telling yourself, "It's just
the
Usenet, not reality."

I've always suspected a real person could not be so completely without
value.

Heehee. Now I know you are just putting me on. Nobody is that
stupid.

And yet you're the one who doesn't have the wit to formulate a rational
rebuttal. Stupid is as stupid does.

You're right, I can't think of a "rational rebuttal" to someone who
thinks
having guns is a fundamental right but an infant who is dying should fend
for themselves.

Well, that just goes to show that you can't think at all, since I've never
made any such suggestion.

Ooo, I think if you read your own crap you will see that you have.

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.

Sorry, but once again, anything that imposes on others a burden or duty
to
affirmatively act in furtherance of the exercise of the "right" is not a
right, it is, at best, an "entitlement," which is an entirely different
thing.

Any society can declare whatever rights they want to declare.

True. Stalin declared that nobody he didn't like had a right to live, but
that doesn't make it moral or ethical.

True.

And Canada declares that all people should be able to get health care. And
that is both moral and ethical.

You declare that people who can't afford health care should fend for
themselves. That is immoral and unethical.

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.

What about the doctor who doesn't want to treat the indigent patient?
Does
he violate that person's "rights" by refusing to do so? Your definition
of
"rights" says yes.

Sounds good to me. What kind of a dickhead doctor would let someone die
because they are poor?

Who knows? It doesn't matter. What you propose is slavery.

LOL. Only the same slavery as anyone who accepts that they have certain
responsibilities.

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

Only because your fractional wit is incapable of understanding the
subtleties of my argument.

It's not subtle at all.

One incapable of understanding the subtleties would be unlikely to
recognize
subtlety.

Or, you might just be a jerk with really obvious arguments that make little
sense.

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

Indeed, but are the underlying precepts that impose those burdens
characterized as "rights" which accrue to an individual, or are they
instead
merely societal obligations created as a part of the social contract
under
which people live in community, according to some method of ratifying
those
obligations, such as democratic voting?

I say the latter.

You have yet to rationally explain how my thesis is wrong.

Your thesis, in English, is nothing more than "Scotty wants certain
things
to be rights and other things not to be rights." That's all there is to
it.

How erudite.

Sorry, truth hurts sometimes.

You like guns, so you want the right to carry one.

Er, no, I HAVE the right to carry one.

Currently.

You don't give a damn
about children in poverty,

Er, no, I merely require you to engage in some small degree of rational
thought in supporting your argument.

Not a problem. That is ongoing.

so you don't want them to have the right to
education or health care.

Er, no, I merely question whether such a "right" exists and if so, what
are
the unintended consequences.

Whatever "right" only exists when it is declared and supported by whatever
society concerned.

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.

Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness
over the rule of law.

I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it
doesn't meet your needs.

Really? How so?

If it became a law that you could not have a gun, how would you feel about
that?

If some "rule of law" says a child born into poverty should die because
they
can't get health care, then I say to hell with that rule of law and the
society that would support it.

But I've never suggested that happen. In fact, I've explicitly stated that
society should provide health care to indigent children. So, what's your
beef?

If that's your position, then what's your beef with Canadian health care?

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.

Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that
burden
on others without their consent.

In some societies it is simply something people want.

Which people? The Hutus wanted the Tutsis dead. Is that okay with you?

No, and it's not OK with me that an idiot like you has a gun either.

None of which has anything to do with education and health care as
fundamental rights.

You don't seem to understand that not everyone views helping other
people -
by supporting fundamental rights such as access to education and
healthcare
- as a burden.

Er, no, you don't understand that the issue is not what some people think,
its the deeper, more subtle issues of "rights" and public policy that are
merely under discussion. That some people don't mind bearing the burden is
not a justification for imposing the burden on those who do.

You obviously can't have education and health care (or a fire department)
for all if selfish prigs can simply opt out.

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 :-/

And therein lies the difference between us: I respect and treasure
individual liberty and freedom, while you have no problem forcibly
imposing
your worldview on others. It's only a short journey from where you are
now
to the Gulags and the Highway of Bones.

ROFL.

I'm sure Stalin would agree with you.

LOL. Stalin was the ultimate selfish prig. You'd have done well as one of
his underlings.

I want innocent children to get medicine if they are sick and have a
chance
to learn how to read.

Then give them that chance.

But, you have yet to produce any rational argument as to why others should
be required to do so.

Because children will die without medicine and if they can't read their
ability to participate in society will be severely limited. Sorry if that's
not rational enough for you.

You are already a prisoner of your selfish beliefs.

Not really. This is just a Usenet debate. You appear to be a prisoner of
your own prejudices and rhetoric.

Ah, I see, whatever you say, no matter how stupid, is just "Usenet debate"
so it doesn't count, but whatever others say in the same forum does.
Interesting!

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

This is the Usenet, where truth is a particularly rare commodity.

Well, from you sertainly.

It's up to you to prove me wrong if you can.

I've proved you wrong many, many times. However, it remains up
to you to prove your assertions - you make a claim, you back it up.

Or perhaps you're lying, or are merely too stupid to know what your policy
actually covers.

I know - you don't. You've never let your ignorance prevent you from
posting bull****. I know what the policy covers, since I've had
to make claims against it in the past. You're talking bull****, as usual.

Mike

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And we should believe you because

I don't bull**** the way you do.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

KMAN rightfully observes:
==============
LOL. There are societal consequences to such a "screw you" approach. No
wonder you are a gun nut. Your utopia would obviously be everyone
living in
a self-sustaining dwelling with a giant electrified fence to protect
them
from having to be in contact with other people or even - gasp - where
people
might care about each other.
===============

KMAN, as I type, I'm listening to an interesting CBC radio documentary
about Karl Polanyi. Polanyi's work is witnessing a resurgence as, for
example, "The Great Transformation" (1944) examined free market systems
and natural social reactions against such systems.

An interesting summary from
http://keithrankin.co.nz/nzpr1998_4Polanyi.html

"The social anthropologist understood that humans are fundamentally
cooperative beings, and that human societies naturally seek to form
institutions that confer social and economic protection. Protection
means supporting producers who are a part of one's own society. And
protection means security, including social security.

Unlike protection which is a natural human impulse, the market system
is an artificial construct of the human intellect.

The flaw in this assertion is that "the market system" is somehow
"artificial" merely because it's the product of human intellect. The market
system is entirely human and impulsive. While it is true that humans are
fundamentally cooperative, and that they form institutions that confer
social protection, the "economic protection" argument fails because
"economics" are a part of the "market system," and the market system is an
entirely natural and logical result of basic human instincts.

Primitive humans banded together for mutual protection and survival of the
species. This institution conferred social protection and structure, as well
as a necessary component of the strong defending the weak. But the "market
system" was inherent even then, because infants and children were only
protected because of their potential to become strong and thus of utility to
the group. In primitive societies, defective children were often killed or
exposed because the society knew that they would never be an asset to the
society. Likewise, a member who became crippled would often be ejected
because he could not contribute to the safety and security of the society.
Thus, the disabled and infirm became "consumers" of resources, not
"producers." In marginal survival situations, non-producing consumers cannot
be permitted because the line between societal success and death is quite
fine.

In times of plenty, the society can afford to grant more of the excess to
the non-producing consumer, and produce more non-producing consumers, thus
increasing the overall strength of the clan. It's an energy-based society.
Energy in must equal or exceed energy out, otherwise the least productive
members must suffer through deprivation. They have less "value" to the clan,
and thus they can be denied resources.

So, even in very early primitive societies we see the market system at work.
To be part of the society, you must produce if you are to consume. And you
must produce something more than you consume if the society is to advance
and be prepared for times of privation. Thus, your "value" to the society is
directly related to how much you do, or potentially may, produce. Those who
produce more consume more because of the energy required to produce. The
clan's finest hunter is entitled to a larger share of the kill because it is
in the best interests of the clan to keep the hunter in prime physical
condition, so that he can provide much more than he consumes, for the
benefit of the whole clan. So, it may be than in times of privation, lesser
producers, and consumers (children) may be deliberately denied some, most or
all of their "share" of the kill so that the hunters can remain healthy and
support the more important and valuable members of the society.

Thus, the statement, "It eschews protection and emphasises discipline" Is
simply not true. Discipline is part and parcel of protection. No discipline
in the allocation of energy, no protection for anyone.

The statement, "Competition is about discipline and conformity, not freedom"
is patently false. The very term "competition" implies freedom to compete
for resources against others. This only occurs when a society has either
sufficient excess resources or is in a state of anarchy where the social
bonds created for societal protection have failed.

The statement, "The tyranny of the self-regulating market can only become
the central organising mechanism if it is intentionally imposed on society
by a government with dubious democratic credentials, and can only survive
for any length of time if such a government resists the spontaneous human
impulse towards protection" is blatant anti-capitalist, socialistic claptrap
that defies simple logic.

"Self-regulating markets" are a fundamental and natural outgrowth of our
natural societal instincts combined with an excess of resources. As
resources begin to exceed basic needs, those who produce the resources, once
sated, will naturally begin to question the altruistic requirements of
energy-margin societal pressures and will seek to gain societal or economic
advantage by taking advantage of their superior abilities in energy
gathering.

Once the society has an adequate amount of energy reserves so that basic
energy needs are met, competition for the excess energy naturally follows,
just as competition for scarce energy resources occurs. Humans are
forward-looking creatures, and their intellect causes them to learn from
past privation and save against future privation. Thus, stockpiling of
energy reserves is an inevitable part of human nature.

The concept of "market" implies a concept of individual ownership of energy
resources. Ownership of the fruits of one's labor is a natural instinct as
well. If you expend energy to secure an energy resource, then it is fully
natural to expect to be rewarded for the energy you expended, in excess of
that energy required to secure the resource. This is a natural offshoot of
the necessity of unequal allocation of energy resources to keep prime
producers healthy.

So, we have a natural instinct and special ability to obtain and stockpile
energy resources, and we have a group of consumers who need or desire access
to those stockpiles. That defines a "market system" quite precisely, and
it's all perfectly natural and occurs without any intervention of "central
government" at all.

Economic liberals, contrary to the way they portray themselves, are not
believers in small government. They are not akin to anarchists, as Marx
saw them. Rather they adopt a view of government that differs
fundamentally from that of social democrats. Economic liberals believe,
following Jeremy Bentham, that government means the "ministry of
police" (read Treasury in today's parlance) and not the "ministry of
welfare"

I'd have to have a better idea of how he comes up with his definitions
before I can respond to this, but it sounds suspiciously socialistic to me.


I doubt whether Scott Weiser has ever given thought to "The tyranny of
the self-regulating market can only become the central organising
mechanism if it is intentionally imposed on society by a
government...."?

Oh, I've thought about it. Moreover, I've commented upon it and debunked it.
How about you? Can you provide any cogent argument?

--
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 KMAN wrote:


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

I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come
across
him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown,
as there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others.

Mark

What you mean, of course, is the idea that you must save another person
(e.g. throw them a life presever) is an affirmative burden on you, and
therefore the starting point on the slippery slope to gulags and other
nasty
commie stuff.

Precisely correct. Your choice of whether to save someone or not is your
choice. Government cannot mandate that you do so, particularly if it puts
you at risk. Whether you can live with yourself is, of course, a moral and
ethical dilemma you will have to deal with. Also, society may choose to
reject your reasons for not helping and deem you to be selfish or cowardly
and withhold approval and heap upon you opprobrium, but it may not compel
you to act under penalty of law.

The danger of "mandatory" rescue laws is that when the law requires others
to put themselves at risk to save someone, the chances are greatly
increased
that the government will decide to regulate dangerous activities so as to
"balance" the risks to rescuers with you "right" to endanger yourself.

This leads to things like the closure of whitewater venues deemed "too
dangerous."

Again, be careful what you wish for.

My example was throwing someone a life preserver.

Which you're entitled to do. But be careful about using the law to mandate
that anyone else do so.

--
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 KMAN wrote:

Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness
over the rule of law.

I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it
doesn't meet your needs.

Really? How so?

If it became a law that you could not have a gun, how would you feel about
that?

Evasion. What specific evidence do you have to make the claim "I've noticed
you yourself don't give a damn for the 'rule of law' if it doesn't meet your
needs"?

You have accused me of something, now either substantiate this accusation or
be branded a liar.


If some "rule of law" says a child born into poverty should die because
they
can't get health care, then I say to hell with that rule of law and the
society that would support it.

But I've never suggested that happen. In fact, I've explicitly stated that
society should provide health care to indigent children. So, what's your
beef?

If that's your position, then what's your beef with Canadian health care?

Because it imposes costs on people unwillingly for the medical care of other
adults.


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.

Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that
burden
on others without their consent.

In some societies it is simply something people want.

Which people? The Hutus wanted the Tutsis dead. Is that okay with you?

No, and it's not OK with me that an idiot like you has a gun either.

And yet the Tutsis would have been much better off if they'd had guns,
wouldn't they?


None of which has anything to do with education and health care as
fundamental rights.

Sure it does. You're just incapable understanding the link.


You don't seem to understand that not everyone views helping other
people -
by supporting fundamental rights such as access to education and
healthcare
- as a burden.

Er, no, you don't understand that the issue is not what some people think,
its the deeper, more subtle issues of "rights" and public policy that are
merely under discussion. That some people don't mind bearing the burden is
not a justification for imposing the burden on those who do.

You obviously can't have education and health care (or a fire department)
for all if selfish prigs can simply opt out.

Sure you can. Charity begins at home.


I want innocent children to get medicine if they are sick and have a
chance
to learn how to read.

Then give them that chance.

But, you have yet to produce any rational argument as to why others should
be required to do so.

Because children will die without medicine and if they can't read their
ability to participate in society will be severely limited. Sorry if that's
not rational enough for you.

That states a couple of not-very-accurate presumptions, it does not comprise
a rational argument.

You are already a prisoner of your selfish beliefs.

Not really. This is just a Usenet debate. You appear to be a prisoner of
your own prejudices and rhetoric.

Ah, I see, whatever you say, no matter how stupid, is just "Usenet debate"
so it doesn't count, but whatever others say in the same forum does.

What ever made you think that?

--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

I'll stick with the published report, I find it credible. If you disagree,
feel free to refute it.


This is the Usenet, where truth is a particularly rare commodity.

Well, from you sertainly.

It's up to you to prove me wrong if you can.

I've proved you wrong many, many times.

Well, you'd like to think so, certainly...the truth, however, may be
somewhat less accommodating to you.

However, it remains up
to you to prove your assertions - you make a claim, you back it up.

Nah. It's up to you to refute them. I've got the AP on my side, which will
do just fine till you come up with some credible refutation.


Or perhaps you're lying, or are merely too stupid to know what your policy
actually covers.

I know - you don't.

Do you? I'm not so sure. Moreover, it's entirely likely you're lying.

You've never let your ignorance prevent you from
posting bull****. I know what the policy covers, since I've had
to make claims against it in the past. You're talking bull****, as usual.

So, does it cover hospitalization and/or surgery in a Canadian hospital?

--
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 Michael Daly wrote:


On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And we should believe you because

I don't bull**** the way you do.

Heh. For once we agree. You bull**** in a most ignorant, pedantic and
childish manner.

--
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

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And we should believe you because

I don't bull**** the way you do.

Mike

Mike it is obvious that you are dealing with an individual who has multiple
personalities, "And *we* should believe you because," so it would be
impossible for them to deal with reality.

One can only wonder what a Troll with multiple personalities is like in
person?

Mark --next thing ya know, Stevie will be claimin' to have a Hobbit in
every pocket!--

"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
. ..

Mark --next thing ya know, Stevie will be claimin' to have a Hobbit in
every pocket!--

Sorry, got my trolls mixed-up. The above should have read "Scottie."

Mark

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

frtzw906

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it would
appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

This is the Usenet, where truth is a particularly rare commodity.

Well, from you sertainly.

It's up to you to prove me wrong if you can.

I've proved you wrong many, many times. However, it remains up
to you to prove your assertions - you make a claim, you back it up.

Or perhaps you're lying, or are merely too stupid to know what your
policy
actually covers.

I know - you don't. You've never let your ignorance prevent you from
posting bull****. I know what the policy covers, since I've had
to make claims against it in the past. You're talking bull****, as usual.

Mike

Another lie by Scottie-poo debunked:
http://www.insurance-canada.ca/consp...pplemental.php

Mark

Weiser in commenting on Karl Polanyi states:
==============
The flaw in this assertion is that "the market system" is somehow
"artificial" merely because it's the product of human intellect. The
market
system is entirely human and impulsive. While it is true that humans
are
fundamentally cooperative, and that they form institutions that confer
social protection, the "economic protection" argument fails because
"economics" are a part of the "market system," and the market system is
an
entirely natural and logical result of basic human instincts.
===============

Polanyi's point is that if a polity operates or claims to operate
according to the principles of the free market, then that "free market"
is not so free because, by law, it is imposed on the people. His
contention is that people are by nature, cooperative beings who seek
protection. That is their natural tendency. Thus, if you want to
"force" them out of these natural tendencies, then that's exactly what
it takes - force.

You suggest that market systems are "entirely natural and logical
result of basic human instincts.". I wonder.

Do you think the unemployed in America's rust belt or in the auto
industry would concur? Do they believe that they should be denied what
Polanyi would argue is their natural desire for protection? Surely not.

Right now, Canada and the USA are embroiled in a cross-border trade
dispute havng to do with softwood lumber. In this particular case, the
American government has circled the wagons and done exactly what
Polanyi says people/nations naturally do -- they opted for a protective
stance as opposed to the free market stance.

From my perspective, whether nations adopt and enforce either
protectionism or free enterprise depends on who, within that society
has the power to control the political system.

frtzw906

"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
. ..

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it
would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section
of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

This is the Usenet, where truth is a particularly rare
commodity.

Well, from you sertainly.

It's up to you to prove me wrong if you can.

I've proved you wrong many, many times. However, it remains
up
to you to prove your assertions - you make a claim, you back
it up.

Or perhaps you're lying, or are merely too stupid to know
what your policy
actually covers.

I know - you don't. You've never let your ignorance prevent
you from
posting bull****. I know what the policy covers, since I've
had
to make claims against it in the past. You're talking
bull****, as usual.

Mike

Another lie by Scottie-poo debunked:
http://www.insurance-canada.ca/consp...pplemental.php

Mark
=======================
LOL I think you should read it before you post it. He never
said that there was 'no' supplimental insurance, just what it
coves. Guess you missed that part, eh?

Here's the first clue, irst line...
"..Many residents of any given province in Canada choose to
purchase health insurance for medical services which are not
provided by the provincial health plan..."

Having the insuance isn't going to get you the required hospital
treatment if it's covered, in due time, by the health Canada
system.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 5:21 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

but that does not mean
the opportunities do not nonetheless abound. No one has "equal opportunity"
with everyone else, rich or poor, because the major part of "opportunity" is
the individual's willingness to seize it and make it work, in spite of
obstacles. In fact, in most cases, it is the obstacles themselves that
stimulate the drive to succeed that results in success. Many's the rich
child who's failed in business because he hasn't learned how to overcome
adversity. And many's the poor child who has succeeded beyond everyone's
wildest expectations because of a resolve to overcome adversity.

It's all about levelling the playing field.

When you "level the field," you remove all the peaks to be conquered and you
drive the opportunities to excel into the ground.

Giving a child an education and health care is not going to deprive them of
motivation to seek a better life.

Level playing fields are
for soccer, not life. It is the adversities we face in life that cause us to
succeed. The lower on the mountain you start, the greater the reward you
reap when you reach the summit. Helicoptering people to the top of Everest
in order to grant grandma in her wheelchair a "level playing field" devalues
the struggle of actually climbing the mountain.

LOL. There's plenty of struggle left to emerge from poverty even if you can
go to school and not have your arm fall off if you get an infection.

Not everyone is destined for fame and fortune, and it's ridiculous to try to
ensure that every child will be successful.

Not ridiculous to give them the fundamental tools to be succesful - such as
literacy and health - and leave the rest up to them.

One of the worst things we do to
our children is the systematic, socialistic excision of competition from
education. From soccer leagues that don't keep score to banning running
races because somebody has to lose, this anti-competetive "level playing
field" agenda is destroying the motivation for innovation and excellence
that helps the poor become not-poor.

Perhaps not playing competitive soccer is not really the number one barrier
they are facing.

That's a lot of what having a
society is all about Scotty. Making sure that every child - regardless of
family situation - can access education and healthcare is fundamental to
giving kids a chance at the type of life others are simply born into.

The question is how far down that road society can go without destroying
itself through "leveling" everyone out.

Let's start with decent schools and health care for everyone, and see if it
results in kids in poverty somehow ending up worse off, shall we?

As I said, my argument is not about children and their opportunities, and I
have agreed that society has an obligation to support innocent children. My
argument is against socialized medicine for adults, and I've stated that
public education frequently fails to provide an adequate education for many
children *because* it is socialized, and that private education is far more
effective because it provides the stimulus to succeed that public education
does not.

LOL. Is it possible that private education is far more effective because
those who have the means to access it have advantages that those who do not
have the means to access it are lacking?

Yes, sure enough, put a bunch of kids living in poverty into a shabby school
with shabby teachers and drug dealers roaming the halls, and yes, they are
probably not going to go to Harvard like Little Lord Scottleroy on the other
side of the tracks.

Understanding access to education and health care as fundamental human
rights helps to give those born into a poverty a chance.

But is "access" inevitably the same thing as "entitlement?"

I would be fine with the word entitlement. We are talking about children. A
society that does not believe children should be entitled to education and
health care is a society deserving of implosion.

Fine. Now, by calling it an "entitlement," you remove the offensive burden
of calling it a "right" because an "entitlement" is something that the
government can be compelled, by it's bosses, the people, to provide. The
distinction is important because the offending party in any failure to
provide an "entitlement" is the body which "entitled" people to claim the
benefit, not the individual who is compelled to do something in support of
another individual's "rights."

However, I do warn that the "do it for the children" argument is a
dangerous one indeed. I believe more is required to justify legislation than
merely "do it for the children." There needs to be some overall social
benefit that outweighs the potential negative effects of the legislation.

I should be, but I'm not suprised to find an American who believes that
there is no obvious justification for children learning to read and write
and to not have their left foot rot off because they can't get health care.

That gives you an equal opportunity to someone who is born into a wealthy
family, never has to know a hungry belly, has tutors, can afford any
tuition
they require, and does not have to work while studying?

It gives you adequate opportunity to succeed if you're willing to fight for
it.

A child does not understand those grand concepts Scott, especially a child
that can't read or write and their goal is to not be hungry.

It's the parent's duty to fight for their children's future.

As you seem to have recognized, that too is irrelevant to the child and not
in their control.

Getting everything as a gift is not, contrary to your assertion, a
guarantee of success. In fact, in many cases, it's a guarantee of failure.
Just look at Paris Hilton if you don't believe me. Most of the great
entrepeneurs of this country weren't rich to begin with, and many of them
started out as "poor children." The difference between them and a ghetto
child is primarily an unswerving resolve not to be bound to poverty.

Paris Hilton? Is she starving? What are you talking about?

Figure it out.

Why? You said it, you explain it.

Where does a child acquire an "unswerving resolve not to be bound to
poverty?"

From their parents.

And if they don't learn it from their parents?

is all they know is poverty?

Nobody can live in North America these days and "only know poverty." Every
human being on this continent is deluged with the knowledge of prosperity
and success.

Oh, you mean just because some little kid can see rich people on TV, that
should give her the tools she needs to overcome the barriers of illiteracy
and disease?

Geez you are dense. If they are
illiterate and sickly, you really think they can just will themselves into
Harvard and onto the presidency?

They'd better try. Many have, and many have succeeded. If you go to far in
"leveling they playing field" children will have no reason to succeed on
their own. This is not to say that that poor children do not deserve support
and encouragement towards success.

LOL. Giving a child the chance to learn to read and write and survive into
adulthoos is hardly going to far...unless you are an unbelievably selfish
prig.


FYI, not every
community has a Catholic hospital around the corner.

Almost every community has a federally-funded hospital at which even the
indigent can receive emergency care. If there's not one in that community,
then perhaps it's time to move to a community that has more charitable
resources available for the poor.

Yes, the infant should pack his or her bag and crawl to the next county.

No, the parents should.

And if they don't?

You are living in a
dreamland of selfish ignorance.

Nope. I'm just not buying your "the poor are helpless victims" mentality.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I believe in a hand up, not a handout.

Making sure that every child can go to school and get treatment if they are
sick is not about a "poor are helpless victims" mentality. It's about giving
a child a fighting chance at a better quality of life.

I don't disagree. I'm more concerned about adults.

Oh, hell's bells, I'm with you on the problem of adult responsibility. Heck,
look at all the citizens that don't even exercise their basic obligations as
citizens, and let a twit like Bush get re-elected. Isn't it frightening how
few Americans bother to vote?

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.

If it's not a right, then it doesn't have to be provided, and selfish prigs
like yourself obviously aren't going to support it.

So what? If you think it's important, then YOU support it or provide it.

It's not possible for a society to provide education and health care to all
children if selfish prigs can opt out.

Ah, now we finally come to the real issue. Why is it "not possible" for
society to provide these benefits if everyone doesn't participate? Is this
really true? I think not. For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools. But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.

They didn't opt out, they are apparently part of some archaic system where
the only support for education comes from property taxes.

And then there's charity. A huge number of hospitals in both countries are
private Catholic hospitals funded by the Catholic church and they provide
free health care for the indigent.

Geezus, giving someone the only choice of going to a Catholic institution is
cruel and unusual punishment in and of itself.

There's lots of charitable foundations
and organizations, and private donors who would very likely be able to
provide necessary medical care to indigent children without the
participation of the government...at lower expense to the public.

You can't download fundamental societal responsibilities to charities, not
if you don't want a grossly fragmented and grossly unjust society.

So, it is self-evidently not true that it is "not possible for a society to
provide education and health care to all children if selfish prigs can opt
out."

It is quite true. You aren't going to have universal services without
universal support.

Moreover, your claim is simply untrue. There are lots of people who "opt
out" of paying taxes, including, interestingly, the poor themselves, and yet
society continues to provide services to them.

Clearly I am talking about those with the means to contribute.

What your claim really means is that YOU don't like the idea that other
people can "opt out" because it offends YOUR sense of fairness and
socialistic egalitarianism.

I'm not a socialist and never have been.

All I want is literacy and health for children so they have a chance.

You think that everybody should suffer equally
on that "level playing field." Unfortunately, even in your Canadian Utopia,
not everybody plays on the same field or pays their "fair share." That's
life.

I never suggested the playing field is equal or can ever be equal. I just
want children to have a reasonable chance to get in the game.

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.

I don't think that I child born into poverty should have such vastly
different opportunities than those afforded children born into wealth.

Then adopt a poor child and give him better opportunities.

I'd rather keep the child with their parents, and give them access to
education and health care so they can have a chance to make their own
opportunities.

Feel free to open up your wallet and adopt the whole family if you like.

That approach obviously isn't working. If you believe, as I do and as do
most Canadians and Americans, that education and health care are fundamental
rights, then you don't leave it up to random acts of kindness by strangers.

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.

LOL. You forget, the rich people have already overfished the stock and
there's no jobs.

Then take up another line of work and do the same thing. We need ditch
diggers, trash collectors and custodians too. Not everybody can be the CEO
of Ford.

Is there a shortage of ditch diggers, trash collectors, and custodians?

Evidently, given the fact that a million illegal immigrants a month flood
into the country to take these jobs.

Would the fact that they are paid at levels and work in conditions that
would be illegal for american citizens have something to do with that?


I'm not arguing that no one should do those jobs. I'm arguing that an infant
should not start out in life without access to the basic tools they will
need to have a chance at a quality of life that is easily available to those
born into wealth.

And yet you've not demonstrated that society is unable to provide those
benefits at private expense rather than public expense. Private operations
are *always* more efficiently and economically run than government
operations.

Yes, a private school is likely to be more efficient and more economical, in
my opinion (although public schools, particularly where interference from
governing bureaucrats is limited, can be very effective).

But the private school is not going to serve all children. It is only going
to serve the children who can afford to make the school profitable.

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.

You didn't really answer the question.

Sure I did. You just didn't understand the answer.

Sure I did. It was a dodge.

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

Yes or no.

Asked and answered.

No, you dodged. And you still are.

FYI, money and a name can buy a lot of things, including college grades.

Do you have any credible evidence that this is the case?

Every time he opens his mouth - even with countless expert advisors to write
his speeches and help him look less stupid - it's obvious he'd barely pass
grade eight on his own merits.

And yet he graduated from an Ivy-league college

As I said, money can buy anything if you have enough. It doesn't hurt to
have a family name that carries weight either.

flew fighter jets in the
military (which I'm betting you've never done)

He didn't seem to do much of it either.

was the governor of Texas
and is now the President of the United States.

Yes, I'm aware.

I'd have to use history as the metric, as opposed to your biased and
ignorant proclamations.

I stand by my assertion that if forced to survive on his own merits, he
would have difficulty passing grade eight.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 6:09 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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

I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come
across
him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown,
as there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others.

Mark

What you mean, of course, is the idea that you must save another person
(e.g. throw them a life presever) is an affirmative burden on you, and
therefore the starting point on the slippery slope to gulags and other
nasty
commie stuff.

Precisely correct. Your choice of whether to save someone or not is your
choice. Government cannot mandate that you do so, particularly if it puts
you at risk. Whether you can live with yourself is, of course, a moral and
ethical dilemma you will have to deal with. Also, society may choose to
reject your reasons for not helping and deem you to be selfish or cowardly
and withhold approval and heap upon you opprobrium, but it may not compel
you to act under penalty of law.

The danger of "mandatory" rescue laws is that when the law requires others
to put themselves at risk to save someone, the chances are greatly
increased
that the government will decide to regulate dangerous activities so as to
"balance" the risks to rescuers with you "right" to endanger yourself.

This leads to things like the closure of whitewater venues deemed "too
dangerous."

Again, be careful what you wish for.

My example was throwing someone a life preserver.

Which you're entitled to do. But be careful about using the law to mandate
that anyone else do so.

You be careful. Then again, you could always take out your gun and shoot
them instead.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 6:16 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness
over the rule of law.

I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it
doesn't meet your needs.

Really? How so?

If it became a law that you could not have a gun, how would you feel about
that?

Evasion. What specific evidence do you have to make the claim "I've noticed
you yourself don't give a damn for the 'rule of law' if it doesn't meet your
needs"?

You have accused me of something, now either substantiate this accusation or
be branded a liar.

Brand away rick. Er, Scotty.

It's clear to me that you wouldn't give a damn about a law that contradicted
what Scotty Weiser believes to be his fundamental rights.


If some "rule of law" says a child born into poverty should die because
they
can't get health care, then I say to hell with that rule of law and the
society that would support it.

But I've never suggested that happen. In fact, I've explicitly stated that
society should provide health care to indigent children. So, what's your
beef?

If that's your position, then what's your beef with Canadian health care?

Because it imposes costs on people unwillingly for the medical care of other
adults.

It requires selfish prigs to contribute their share.

Oddly enough, I've never met one Canadian who complains of unwillingly
contributing to universal health care.

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.

Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that
burden
on others without their consent.

In some societies it is simply something people want.

Which people? The Hutus wanted the Tutsis dead. Is that okay with you?

No, and it's not OK with me that an idiot like you has a gun either.

And yet the Tutsis would have been much better off if they'd had guns,
wouldn't they?

They'd have been better off not being shot.

None of which has anything to do with education and health care as
fundamental rights.

Sure it does. You're just incapable understanding the link.

Your just so insane that the link works for you.


You don't seem to understand that not everyone views helping other
people -
by supporting fundamental rights such as access to education and
healthcare
- as a burden.

Er, no, you don't understand that the issue is not what some people think,
its the deeper, more subtle issues of "rights" and public policy that are
merely under discussion. That some people don't mind bearing the burden is
not a justification for imposing the burden on those who do.

You obviously can't have education and health care (or a fire department)
for all if selfish prigs can simply opt out.

Sure you can. Charity begins at home.

Charity cannot provide universal education and health care.


I want innocent children to get medicine if they are sick and have a
chance
to learn how to read.

Then give them that chance.

But, you have yet to produce any rational argument as to why others should
be required to do so.

Because children will die without medicine and if they can't read their
ability to participate in society will be severely limited. Sorry if that's
not rational enough for you.

That states a couple of not-very-accurate presumptions
it does not comprise a rational argument.

ROFL!

I guess the children should learn to make their own medicine, right Scotty!

You are already a prisoner of your selfish beliefs.

Not really. This is just a Usenet debate. You appear to be a prisoner of
your own prejudices and rhetoric.

Ah, I see, whatever you say, no matter how stupid, is just "Usenet debate"
so it doesn't count, but whatever others say in the same forum does.

What ever made you think that?

Your preceding statement.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 6:20 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

I'll stick with the published report, I find it credible. If you disagree,
feel free to refute it.

You are making a total fool of yourself with this. More than usual! LOL.

KMAN, you've covered ALL the points. Anything Scott says now will be in
an effort to prolong a debate he long ago lost.

Cheers,
Wilf

in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 3/24/05 11:27 PM:

KMAN, you've covered ALL the points. Anything Scott says now will be in
an effort to prolong a debate he long ago lost.

Cheers,
Wilf

I suppose so, I'm just fascinated by his selective obsession with rights and
obligations.

He comes across as the type of guy with a big bomb shelter in the basement
that hopes and prays for a nuclear holocaust.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 6:20 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so,
it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section
of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

I'll stick with the published report, I find it credible. If
you disagree,
feel free to refute it.

You are making a total fool of yourself with this. More than
usual! LOL.
=====================
The fool that can't refute what is said has spoken, eh?
Still don't have anything...