| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 11:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/21/05 7:49 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scott cites: ============= The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, ============= And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay? The author didn't say. However, the point is that *I* don't have to pay a major portion of my income for *your* bad health habits. BWAHAHAHAHA That's right, the insurance company doesn't make generalizations in setting your premium, they just look at you as Scotty Weiser and set a special rate based on the fact that you don't eat a lot of potato chips. Well, yes, in large part they do. It's called "cherry picking." That incentivizes me to stay healthy, since I know if I get sick, I have to pay for it or die. In Canada, there's no impetus to care for onesself because if you get sick, the government pays for everything...by taking from everyone else to cover your bad health. BWAHAHAHAHAHA That's right, Canadians are deliberately unhealthy because they know they can see a doctor without going bankrupt. In fact, I'm working on damaging my liver right now so that one day I will have the chance for surgery on the government health plan!!! Facts are facts. Canadians are famous for over-indulgence with beer, which is bad for your liver. Wow, that's brilliant, and it proves your theory that Canadians are deliberately unhealthy because they have access to health care! That's wrong. Personal responsibility is the best way, always. That's why Americans are the healthiest people on the planet and obesity has been all but eliminated there. I did not suggest that personal responsibility results in good health, only that it doesn't shove off the costs of poor health habits onto others. Every person is entitled to preserve or destroy their health however they choose. What they're not entitled to do is expect someone else to pay for trying to heal them when they screw up. LOL. There are societal consequences to such a "screw you" approach. Indeed. Liberty, self-reliance, prosperity, individual responsibility, mutual respect...yep, lots of consequences. More like paranoid assholes walking around with concealed weapons and living their life in fear. 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. I see. Respecting other people's right to live their lives as they wish without having the government or one's nosy neighbors interfere is anathema to you? Living without a concern for others is anathema to me. Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and effective means of showing concern for others. My "utopia" is a land where people get to do what they want, so long as they don't harm others The fact that a system of private sector health care will cater only to those who can afford to pay means that supporters of said private sector health care are indeed harming others. and other people neither interfere with them nor do they require them to subsidize the equal exercise of liberty rights by others, even when such exercise results in some ill effects. This does not preclude anyone from offering assistance of their own free will, but it does preclude the "community" from extracting "caring" by force of law from those who do not choose to be "caring" for one reason or another. Yup, I know that's your vision. Everyone in their own little cabin with their own little guns with their entire life devoted to protecting what's theirs. None of it matters a whit in a country that forbids a private individual from obtaining private medical insurance That's odd. Because the private medical insurance business does pretty well here. I wonder how they stay in business? By soaking dumb Canucks for insurance premiums they would be better advised to put in the bank. ? First you say private medical insurance is forbidden, and hext you say Canadians are paying to much for it? Yeah, Canadians are *really* stupid that way...buying something they can't use and don't need. Sheesh. Well, which is it...is there not such thing as private medical insurance in Canada? Or is there such a thing? |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
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. I see. Respecting other people's right to live their lives as they wish without having the government or one's nosy neighbors interfere is anathema to you? Living without a concern for others is anathema to me. 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. Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and effective means of showing concern for others. Indeed. However, being compelled to to contribute to those causes by force of law is morally repugnant. My "utopia" is a land where people get to do what they want, so long as they don't harm others The fact that a system of private sector health care will cater only to those who can afford to pay means that supporters of said private sector health care are indeed harming others. It's a rather large logical leap to blame those who dislike coercive socialism and favor free-market health care for "harm" that others might cause themselves through bad planning or misfortune. -- 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 |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: 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. I see. Respecting other people's right to live their lives as they wish without having the government or one's nosy neighbors interfere is anathema to you? Living without a concern for others is anathema to me. 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. Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and effective means of showing concern for others. Indeed. However, being compelled to to contribute to those causes by force of law is morally repugnant. Not to me. I'm proud to do it. I'm not proud when government does a poor job of it, don't get me wrong on that. But I am proud to be a part of a society that sees education and health care as necessities of life. My "utopia" is a land where people get to do what they want, so long as they don't harm others The fact that a system of private sector health care will cater only to those who can afford to pay means that supporters of said private sector health care are indeed harming others. It's a rather large logical leap to blame those who dislike coercive socialism and favor free-market health care for "harm" that others might cause themselves through bad planning or misfortune. Or having the audacity to be born poor. Talk about repugant. You define selfishness. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
One can have concern for others without being compelled by law to enable their bad decision making and behavior. Nobody's asking you to live without concern. You can have as much concern as you like. You can give all your goods to the poor and spend your life serving the poor while wearing sackcloth and ashes if you like. You may not, however, compel anyone else to join you unwillingly. That would be immoral and repugnant. Each individual gets to choose how much concern he or she shows to others. It's not the government's duty or authority to compel it. I disagree. I think there are basic human rights that should be afforded everyone. This includes education and health care. Well, that's a reasonable argument to make. But are they basic human rights? I say no. In essence, a human right is something that society is compelled only to respect and not infringe upon. The right to life, the right to liberty, the right to own a gun, the right to freely exercise religion, even the right to obtain an abortion...if the service is available. All are things with which others, in particular the government, may not *interfere.* But in no case is anyone compelled to participate or facilitate the exercise of those rights. What you refer to, however, are called "entitlements," not "rights." The difference is that rights are inherent to a person's humanity, they are not "provided" to them by someone else. No burden other than the respecting of the exercise of one's rights is imposed on either society or individuals. No affirmative act is required by another person to effectuate or enable those rights. Education and health care, however, require the active participation of others if the "right" is to be exercised. In so doing, an affirmative burden or duty is placed on someone else to provide or facilitate the enjoyment of that right. In order to exercise the "right" to health care, someone must be compelled to provide that health care, otherwise the person's "rights" are "violated." Never has our society imposed an affirmative burden on another in the exercise of a right by an individual. There is great danger in doing so, because it leads to impositions on the rights of those compelled to provide the services, who have a right of free association...and disassociation. Should the Catholic doctor be compelled to provide an abortion because not to do so would violate the "rights" of the woman requesting it? Should the Jewish teacher be compelled to teach a neo-nazi college student because the student's "right" to an education outweighs the teacher's right to not associate with neo-nazis? Should the gun store owner be compelled to give a gun to anyone who asks because failing to do so would infringe on a person's right to own a gun? I think not. You may have a right to own a gun, but no one is compelled to provide you with a gun as an affirmative act in facilitation of your rights. The UN believes that housing is a "basic human right," which means that someone is going to be compelled to provide that housing, perhaps against their will and likely at their own expense. Such "entitlements" pose a serious threat to the rights of people who do not choose to facilitate those "rights." Medical care and education are fundamentally the same. Using your plan, anyone who refuses to provide medical care or education is violating the rights of the person who wishes to exercise the franchise. That's neither reasonable nor fair, nor would it comport with the Constitution or the understanding we have of fundamental precepts. And imagine the flood of lawsuits that would result. It would paralyze the legal system. No, you cannot impose an affirmative burden on others in the exercise of your rights. If you must, it's not a right, it's something else. Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and effective means of showing concern for others. Indeed. However, being compelled to to contribute to those causes by force of law is morally repugnant. Not to me. I'm proud to do it. I'm not proud when government does a poor job of it, don't get me wrong on that. But I am proud to be a part of a society that sees education and health care as necessities of life. Which is fine. What about those who don't want to do it? Are their feelings to be considered, or should they just shut up and pay for whatever you happen to think they ought to pay for? My "utopia" is a land where people get to do what they want, so long as they don't harm others The fact that a system of private sector health care will cater only to those who can afford to pay means that supporters of said private sector health care are indeed harming others. It's a rather large logical leap to blame those who dislike coercive socialism and favor free-market health care for "harm" that others might cause themselves through bad planning or misfortune. Or having the audacity to be born poor. Again, you finally make a reasoned argument. Should society provide free health care for poor *children* whose parents cannot afford proper health care? I'd say yes, because the children are innocent in the matter and have no control over how they live or plan their lives, and simple compassion dictates that the innocent be protected. Adults are a different matter entirely, however. Talk about repugant. You define selfishness. Selfishness is a civil right, that's rather the point. You may not admire or like it, but you don't get to dictate how other people live their lives...at least down here in the US, which is a *good* thing. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. In essence, a human right is something that society is compelled only to respect and not infringe upon. The right to life, the right to liberty, the right to own a gun, the right to freely exercise religion, even the right to obtain an abortion...if the service is available. All are things with which others, in particular the government, may not *interfere.* But in no case is anyone compelled to participate or facilitate the exercise of those rights. What you refer to, however, are called "entitlements," not "rights." The difference is that rights are inherent to a person's humanity, they are not "provided" to them by someone else. No burden other than the respecting of the exercise of one's rights is imposed on either society or individuals. No affirmative act is required by another person to effectuate or enable those rights. ROFLMAO So owning a gun is a fundamental human right, but a child getting medical care is not? Yup. Well...the right to keep and bear arms, including guns, is. 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. Education and health care, however, require the active participation of others if the "right" is to be exercised. In so doing, an affirmative burden or duty is placed on someone else to provide or facilitate the enjoyment of that right. In order to exercise the "right" to health care, someone must be compelled to provide that health care, otherwise the person's "rights" are "violated." Never has our society imposed an affirmative burden on another in the exercise of a right by an individual. There is great danger in doing so, because it leads to impositions on the rights of those compelled to provide the services, who have a right of free association...and disassociation. Should the Catholic doctor be compelled to provide an abortion because not to do so would violate the "rights" of the woman requesting it? Should the Jewish teacher be compelled to teach a neo-nazi college student because the student's "right" to an education outweighs the teacher's right to not associate with neo-nazis? Should the gun store owner be compelled to give a gun to anyone who asks because failing to do so would infringe on a person's right to own a gun? I think not. You may have a right to own a gun, but no one is compelled to provide you with a gun as an affirmative act in facilitation of your rights. The UN believes that housing is a "basic human right," which means that someone is going to be compelled to provide that housing, perhaps against their will and likely at their own expense. Such "entitlements" pose a serious threat to the rights of people who do not choose to facilitate those "rights." Medical care and education are fundamentally the same. Using your plan, anyone who refuses to provide medical care or education is violating the rights of the person who wishes to exercise the franchise. Er. No. It means as a society agreeing that education and health care should be available to all. If not infringing upon the religified is something important to a certain society, but they still believe that health care is a basic human right, then they will negotiate the situation. 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. 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. This affirmative burden nonsense is so...so...goofy! Only because your fractional wit is incapable of understanding the subtleties of my argument. 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. 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. or the understanding we have of fundamental precepts. And imagine the flood of lawsuits that would result. It would paralyze the legal system. No, you cannot impose an affirmative burden on others in the exercise of your rights. If you must, it's not a right, it's something else. Whatever you want to call it, I believe in a society where a child can get help when they are sick and can go to school no matter what the financial status of the family they are born into. Then provide the funding for such a society and be called a hero. 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. Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and effective means of showing concern for others. Indeed. However, being compelled to to contribute to those causes by force of law is morally repugnant. Not to me. I'm proud to do it. I'm not proud when government does a poor job of it, don't get me wrong on that. But I am proud to be a part of a society that sees education and health care as necessities of life. Which is fine. What about those who don't want to do it? Are their feelings to be considered, or should they just shut up and pay for whatever you happen to think they ought to pay for? Selfish prigs are a part of every society, and you can't worry much about their feelings, or you'll soon have a society of paranoid freaks walking around with concealed weapons ready to shoot at their own shadow. Classic socialist swill: "Shut up and do what we tell you..." 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. -- 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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Bush propaganda against Kerry | General | |||
| Bush fiddles while health care burns | General | |||
| OT- Ode to Immigration | General | |||
| OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
