Advertisement
by Surote » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:09 pm
by Muravyets » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:10 pm
Sibirsky wrote:
If I throw a brick at your head the police are there to arrest me. Because I have violated your rights. The police exist to prevent me from doing that. Not that'd I ever do it, it's just an example.
by The_pantless_hero » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:11 pm
Sibirsky wrote:The_pantless_hero wrote:Sibirsky wrote:
No. By not providing healthcare, it is not violating anybody's rights.
Neither is not providing education, police, or military protection.
If I throw a brick at your head the police are there to arrest me. Because I have violated your rights. The police exist to prevent me from doing that. Not that'd I ever do it, it's just an example.
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!
by United Dependencies » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:45 pm
Surote wrote:Sibirsky wrote:Muravyets wrote:The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.
If true hurt the rich not the suffering
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).
Cannot think of a name wrote:Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.
Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.
by Rhodmhire » Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:01 pm
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Maybe I'm the nut, but taking 15 million from someone with 30 million sounds a lot less painful than taking 15 thousand from someone with 30 thousand.
by Rhodmhire » Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:06 pm
The_pantless_hero wrote:Really, what right of mine did you violate?
And how does the government no providing police violate my rights?
by Ashmoria » Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:06 pm
Rhodmhire wrote:Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Maybe I'm the nut, but taking 15 million from someone with 30 million sounds a lot less painful than taking 15 thousand from someone with 30 thousand.
Well, maybe I'm a nut as well, I don't think it's very encouraging to people who wish to earn more to hear that half of their money will be taken. Honestly hearing that, I think the average person would rather not work harder and harder, if it only leads to getting more and more money taken away--more and more of their time wasted.
But I think I'm just as nuts as you are, maybe more nuts.
by Lunatic Goofballs » Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:09 pm
Rhodmhire wrote:Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Maybe I'm the nut, but taking 15 million from someone with 30 million sounds a lot less painful than taking 15 thousand from someone with 30 thousand.
Well, maybe I'm a nut as well, I don't think it's very encouraging to people who wish to earn more to hear that half of their money will be taken. Honestly hearing that, I think the average person would rather not work harder and harder, if it only leads to getting more and more money taken away--more and more of their time wasted.
But I think I'm just as nuts as you are, maybe more nuts.
by Surote » Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:40 pm
by The_pantless_hero » Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:44 pm
Rhodmhire wrote:It depends. If he intended to kill you, that would infringe upon your right to life
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!
by Rhodmhire » Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:00 pm
The_pantless_hero wrote:Rhodmhire wrote:It depends. If he intended to kill you, that would infringe upon your right to life
There is no 'right to life.'
by Muravyets » Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:16 pm
Rhodmhire wrote:The_pantless_hero wrote:Rhodmhire wrote:It depends. If he intended to kill you, that would infringe upon your right to life
There is no 'right to life.'
"...certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Even if they weren't mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, I still always assumed that everyone had and has the right to live.
So you're saying there's no natural sense that all life is sacred? That is until one who has life tries to take away another's for no rational reason.
No offense, but that seems like a bunch of bullshit to me.
by Rhodmhire » Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:34 pm
Muravyets wrote:A) The DoI is not the law of the land.
Obviously, I used it to show the Framer's recognition of the right to life. It's like the right to property, or the right to self-defense, all basic. You don't need a piece of paper to tell you such basic things like, "Your property is yours, if your threatened you can defend yourself, and your life is sacred."
I never said the Declaration was the law of the land, I used it to show how the Framers recognized it.B) No, there is no "natural sense" that "all life is sacred". Such an assertion is absurd on its face.
So let me get this straight, you're to tell me that if somebody's life was taken from them, that the accussed could very well use in defense that the person's life wasn't sacred? That the victim's life has no natural sense of worth?
Basically, life is worthless? Because there's no natural sense that life is supposed to be defended at all. Hell, let's not punish murderers at all, I mean it's not like the life or lives they took were meaningful at all, right?C) This line of argument is nothing but another deflection from the real topic. The original assertion was that the government does not violate anyone's rights by NOT providing health care. TPH asked if it would violate people's rights by not providing police either, apparently citing police as an example of the kinds of services the government normally provides. Sibirsky then began talking about how if someone tries to crack your skull that's a violation of your rights -- he made no effort to explain what that has to do with whether the government has to provide police in order to not violate people's rights.
It shouldn't even be up to the police all the time. I say the police should be there to help when people can't defend themselves, or when the situation is out of the hands of the vitcim(s). Naturally, if your life is threatened, you yourself should be able to defend yourself, and take action for yourself, whether it's your owned property, safety, or life itself that is in jeopardy.
Government is supposed to protect people, sometimes that means providing. Providing a military for example. However, we have to consider if the government should provide healthcare. The real question isn't, "Is it a violation of rights if they don't," it's simply, "Can the government handle it?" Honestly, I don't believe our government can.D) Because of the above, any argument about whether there is a right to live or not is removed from the topic of the thread by a few degrees.
You're saying the right to life isn't really in relationship to the reform on healthcare. You're right in the sense of that wasn't the main topic, and it's not really in any attachment to the topic of discussion. However, in a way it can be. In the argument that it's government's job to protect our natural unalienable rights, the right to life--a very unalienable right in my book--can be brought up, as it was. Therefore, it is loosely connected to healthcare reform, but again--loosely.
E) I did point out in another post that, according to the UN, of which the US is a member and whose conventions and resolutions are partially drafted by the US, access to basic medical care is a human right, so that blocking people's access to the same would in fact be a violation of rights. It is my argument that the current US private health care system is so corrupt, it effectively denies access to basic care to millions of Americans.
Investor's business Daily put out an editorial on 15 July 09.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 8165656854
According to page 16 of the House Healt Care Reform Bill, after the date that this travesty is signed into law, the Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to sign up new health care insurance policies. This applies to people who have never had private insurance and people who want to change insurance carriers.
by Muravyets » Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:14 pm
Rhodmhire wrote:Obviously, I used it to show the Framer's recognition of the right to life. It's like the right to property, or the right to self-defense, all basic. You don't need a piece of paper to tell you such basic things like, "Your property is yours, if your threatened you can defend yourself, and your life is sacred."
I never said the Declaration was the law of the land, I used it to show how the Framers recognized it.
So let me get this straight, you're to tell me that if somebody's life was taken from them, that the accussed could very well use in defense that the person's life wasn't sacred? That the victim's life has no natural sense of worth?
It shouldn't even be up to the police all the time. I say the police should be there to help when people can't defend themselves, or when the situation is out of the hands of the vitcim(s). Naturally, if your life is threatened, you yourself should be able to defend yourself, and take action for yourself, whether it's your owned property, safety, or life itself that is in jeopardy.
Government is supposed to protect people, sometimes that means providing. Providing a military for example. However, we have to consider if the government should provide healthcare. The real question isn't, "Is it a violation of rights if they don't," it's simply, "Can the government handle it?" Honestly, I don't believe our government can.
You're saying the right to life isn't really in relationship to the reform on healthcare. You're right in the sense of that wasn't the main topic, and it's not really in any attachment to the topic of discussion. However, in a way it can be. In the argument that it's government's job to protect our natural unalienable rights, the right to life--a very unalienable right in my book--can be brought up, as it was. Therefore, it is loosely connected to healthcare reform, but again--loosely.
The UN...yeah I won't start with the UN.
Of course basic medical care is a right. I just don't believe the current system or the proposed system of healthcare are good.
Like many issues, I'm not on one side of the spectrum or the other.
[/quote][/quote]I consider this argument done, since you're right in saying it distracts from the main topic of discussion:
Investor's business Daily put out an editorial on 15 July 09.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 8165656854
According to page 16 of the House Healt Care Reform Bill, after the date that this travesty is signed into law, the Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to sign up new health care insurance policies. This applies to people who have never had private insurance and people who want to change insurance carriers.
So I'll end it, respond if you wish, but I'd rather not drag this entire thread into a totally different topic. I'll end here, unless you insist on continuing, in that case I will.
by Iniika » Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:15 pm
Rhodmhire wrote:Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Maybe I'm the nut, but taking 15 million from someone with 30 million sounds a lot less painful than taking 15 thousand from someone with 30 thousand.
Well, maybe I'm a nut as well, I don't think it's very encouraging to people who wish to earn more to hear that half of their money will be taken. Honestly hearing that, I think the average person would rather not work harder and harder, if it only leads to getting more and more money taken away--more and more of their time wasted.
But I think I'm just as nuts as you are, maybe more nuts.
by Surote » Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:57 pm
Iniika wrote:Rhodmhire wrote:Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Maybe I'm the nut, but taking 15 million from someone with 30 million sounds a lot less painful than taking 15 thousand from someone with 30 thousand.
Well, maybe I'm a nut as well, I don't think it's very encouraging to people who wish to earn more to hear that half of their money will be taken. Honestly hearing that, I think the average person would rather not work harder and harder, if it only leads to getting more and more money taken away--more and more of their time wasted.
But I think I'm just as nuts as you are, maybe more nuts.
Just so you know, every time I get a raise, my medical plan goes up... maybe $5. I can't recall ever even considering refusing a raise, just so that my medical won't go up. Considering that raise will earn me an extra $70 a month... even with the increase, that's an extra $65 I'm earning.
It's kind of silly to suggest that knowing you will be taxed higher if you make more money will deter people from wanting to make more money.
I mean... if -your- employer offered you $70 more a month, but $5 of it had to be put into the company pot for a monthly pizza lunch that might fall on a day you were working and might not... you're STILL getting an extra $65! And the chance for free pizza! Seems like a good deal to me >.>
by Sibirsky » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:38 pm
Rhodmhire wrote:The_pantless_hero wrote:Really, what right of mine did you violate?
And how does the government no providing police violate my rights?
It depends. If he intended to kill you, that would infringe upon your right to life. In all honesty, government doesn't even have to get involved, because if your life is threatened, you have always had the right to threaten and/or take the threat's life in an act of self-defense.
Also, if it were only to harm/hurt you--you'd still have the right to self defense. Perhaps killing wouldn't be the best option in that case, but your right to defend yourself if you well-being is threatened still remains.
No police provision isn't really violating your rights, technically you're obligated to simply defend yourself if your'e able-bodied to do so, which I'm assuming you would be.
If you're unable to defend yourself, and government does nothing, I suppose that would be failure to protect your right to life and well-being/safety, two rights that--even if void in the Constitution--should be protected by any Democracy, Democratic-Republic, Republic, and so forth.
They're two basic rights, so basic, I honestly don't think anyone should think of them as irrelevant.
by Sibirsky » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:39 pm
Muravyets wrote:Sibirsky wrote:
If I throw a brick at your head the police are there to arrest me. Because I have violated your rights. The police exist to prevent me from doing that. Not that'd I ever do it, it's just an example.
And how did the cops get there? How do they have a job to be there when you need them? Who pays for them?
by Sibirsky » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:42 pm
Ashmoria wrote:Rhodmhire wrote:Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Maybe I'm the nut, but taking 15 million from someone with 30 million sounds a lot less painful than taking 15 thousand from someone with 30 thousand.
Well, maybe I'm a nut as well, I don't think it's very encouraging to people who wish to earn more to hear that half of their money will be taken. Honestly hearing that, I think the average person would rather not work harder and harder, if it only leads to getting more and more money taken away--more and more of their time wasted.
But I think I'm just as nuts as you are, maybe more nuts.
the average person will never make $30million.
i prefer to worry about things that might actually affect me and leave the rich to take care of themselves. they have done an excellent job of it over the years.
by Muravyets » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:49 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Muravyets wrote:Sibirsky wrote:
If I throw a brick at your head the police are there to arrest me. Because I have violated your rights. The police exist to prevent me from doing that. Not that'd I ever do it, it's just an example.
And how did the cops get there? How do they have a job to be there when you need them? Who pays for them?
The cops are paid for by collecting property taxes from property in that jurisdiction.
by Grave_n_idle » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:52 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Ashmoria wrote:Rhodmhire wrote:Well, maybe I'm a nut as well, I don't think it's very encouraging to people who wish to earn more to hear that half of their money will be taken. Honestly hearing that, I think the average person would rather not work harder and harder, if it only leads to getting more and more money taken away--more and more of their time wasted.
But I think I'm just as nuts as you are, maybe more nuts.
the average person will never make $30million.
i prefer to worry about things that might actually affect me and leave the rich to take care of themselves. they have done an excellent job of it over the years.
Yes we will. The way things are going will be millionaires in no time. Except we'll also be spending millions on things like bread and water.
by Muravyets » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:53 pm
Sibirsky wrote:<snip the usual Boo! Scary African Money song and dance>
by Sibirsky » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:56 pm
Muravyets wrote:Sibirsky wrote:<snip the usual Boo! Scary African Money song and dance>
Your Zimbabwe trick would ring less hollow if you spent less time showing how little you know about how public systems (of many kinds) actually work.
by Treznor » Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:07 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Muravyets wrote:Sibirsky wrote:<snip the usual Boo! Scary African Money song and dance>
Your Zimbabwe trick would ring less hollow if you spent less time showing how little you know about how public systems (of many kinds) actually work.
Because the government is NOT creating inflation....
by Muravyets » Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:08 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Muravyets wrote:Sibirsky wrote:<snip the usual Boo! Scary African Money song and dance>
Your Zimbabwe trick would ring less hollow if you spent less time showing how little you know about how public systems (of many kinds) actually work.
Because the government is NOT creating inflation....
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Hidrandia, Philjia, Quincy, Spirit of Hope
Advertisement