|
doublemint you might want to go read his post again. he was being sarcastic, and obviously so.
you should quote Rabbet, who said that seriously. because he is an uncultured, uneducated heathen.
|
On February 05 2012 05:29 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 05:08 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. I agree, most "liberal" people I know have struggled and failed at life and as a result turn to the government to take care of them. Some of these people were staunch conservatives as well. I have to admit I have not met many students that were conservative, they usually want most or all of their tuition paid for by the government or pretend to not be able to find jobs after they are done school. I don't think it is proper to be calling people names, I am going to report you. I honestly detest the people that link liberal with being a leech. If you understood the Canadian political landscape whatsoever, youd realize the vast majority of the population is liberal, at least soically. The most variance is seen when you look at peoples fiscal beliefs. Most everyone is barely off center. The statement most liberal people struggle and fail at life cant be factually true, as MOST people are liberal, and our unemployment numbers arent all too high. Ontario is a Liberal party bastion, and is the most populated and overall productive province in the country. Most liberals dont vote for social policies out of self benefit. Somehow theres a liberal majority here, but only a small % of people use unemployment, or use the healthcare systems resources. My family votes liberal, yet none of us have ever used unemployment, we have used the healthcare system, but definitely for less than what weve paid into it, yet we still are liberals. All of your arguments have been purely idealogical though, and I dont expect any of them to be any different. The best you can come up with, is i think my liberal friends suck at life, or I want a shed more than the health and well being of my countrymates. You dont actually have any proof that your system would function better than the current one. Its easy to do this when the system you rip on has provided you with the ability to live a safe, comfortable life. Funny how that works.
I don't have liberal friends, the people I referred to are not my friends.
Ontario may be provincially Liberal, but don't Ontario Liberals have ~14 seats in parliament? I think the NDP has ~30 seats in Ontario(?) federally and at least I can admire their determination and passion for what they believe. But the Liberals have been sitting on the center for way too long and have let their principles become eroded by populist ideas.
And its about time people started voting in accordance to what the roles of government should be instead of "social" values. Who cares what the religion of a candidate is as long as he has strong beliefs in what the government is supposed to do for people. Pro choice/pro life? The government shouldn't even be involved in this debate. Sexuality? Again, no reason for government to even include it in the docket.
The problem you have when you say I have no proof of "my" system is that the current system has many of the qualities that "my" system has as well. So you could say that the current system is "my" system and it just got injected with a bunch of useless crap that doesn't belong. I am just trying to clean up and make better the current/"my" system.
|
On February 05 2012 05:47 red_b wrote:
doublemint you might want to go read his post again. he was being sarcastic, and obviously so.
you should quote Rabbet, who said that seriously. because he is an uncultured, uneducated heathen.
Thanx for that, but I , and I guess the one that´s refered to will get it  . I just found it easier to quote the sarcastic one instead of the one whose reply could be interpreted as satire.
|
On February 05 2012 05:03 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:58 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 06:49 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:41 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 06:16 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:00 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 05:48 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 05:46 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Actually, his post is factual. You, on the other hand, consistently base your posts on ideology rather than reality, as red_b himself showed in your exchange on healthcare.
By the way, Kiarip, since you never replied to my last post in our previous exchange, I take that as an acknowledgment from your part that your initial statement, which I rebutted, was indeed wrong. I replied to it. The "right to health-care" as you defined it wasn't a right, if you would have used quotations you could have avoided the misunderstanding which resulted in you arguing semantics, but yeah you're right in the fact that we're done with that now, because like I stated, I have no interest in arguing about semantics with you. No, you did not reply to it, and that's not what we were arguing about: we were arguing about your assertion that the rights of healthcare providers would be violated, while YOU were trying to derail the discussion into a debate about semantics and what constitutes a right. Nice to see you're still trying to avoid having to defend your claim! I said that a right to healthcare would violate the rights of the health-care providers. However, since there's no actual right to healthcare anywhere right now I can't give you an example of the rights of health-care providers being violated, because there's no such right. I can only give you an example of the risks and expenses being socialized amongst the general population as a result of the government trying to deliver on their promise of this privilege. Erm, at no point in our discussion did I ask for an example of the rights of healthcare providers being violated today. Did you originally stop replying to me because you couldn't rewrite our discussion when it was still going on? In my last posts I defined very precisely what kind of right to healthcare the people you replied to were referring to, and I explained why it would not violate the rights of the healthcare providers. I consistently refused to let you derail the discussion into a debate about what constitutes a right or about taxation. You then stopped replying. and once you finally described what you were talking I agreed that this doesn't infringe on rights of health-care providers, because what you were describing wasn't a right, but a government guaranteed privilege. It had been defined in the original posts you decided to reply to as well. It was a right. See? You're trying to argue semantics again. You seem to forget that I quoted the Merriam-Webster entry for "right", which supported my (and the other poster's) position and invalidated your claim that it would not qualify as a "right". That's probably one of the reasons you stopped replying - you couldn't even argue semantics anymore. Well I dunno some of the definitions are this the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled & something that one may properly claim as due and this doesn't quite sound like what socialized medicine actually is. There you go - Kiarip uses a straw man again. The words "socialized medicine" never came out of my mouth. You tried arguing semantics when confronted with the fact that your original statement was invalid: you started to argue the "right to healthcare" we were referring could not be called a "right". The definitions featured in the Merriam-Webster dictionary proved you wrong. Don't try to switch the subject of the debate again, to "socialized medicine" or anything else. I only called it socialized medicine because the "right to healthcare" as defined in that video didn't at all fit the definition of a what a right is according to Webster dictionary, so I don't know what else to call it. you can stop looking silly now... This discussion has been long finished. "right to healthcare" isn't a right. Freedom of speech is a right. Pursuit of happiness is a right, freedom to not be detained without being provided a lawyer is a right... healthcare can't be a right.
Are you serious? Anything and everything can be defined as a right. At the end of the day rights are only rights if they are respected and as such all rights are dependant on recognition of the community.
Whether something is or should be a right hinges on how well you can argue for it and if the community recognizes it or not. There are very strong arguments for health care to be concidered a right, but it doesn't seem like the American community is going to recognize it as a right and thus it isn't.
Thanks for letting me apply some logic. Making posts like this one really does brighten my day.
|
On February 05 2012 05:48 Rabbet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 05:29 Focuspants wrote:On February 05 2012 05:08 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. I agree, most "liberal" people I know have struggled and failed at life and as a result turn to the government to take care of them. Some of these people were staunch conservatives as well. I have to admit I have not met many students that were conservative, they usually want most or all of their tuition paid for by the government or pretend to not be able to find jobs after they are done school. I don't think it is proper to be calling people names, I am going to report you. I honestly detest the people that link liberal with being a leech. If you understood the Canadian political landscape whatsoever, youd realize the vast majority of the population is liberal, at least soically. The most variance is seen when you look at peoples fiscal beliefs. Most everyone is barely off center. The statement most liberal people struggle and fail at life cant be factually true, as MOST people are liberal, and our unemployment numbers arent all too high. Ontario is a Liberal party bastion, and is the most populated and overall productive province in the country. Most liberals dont vote for social policies out of self benefit. Somehow theres a liberal majority here, but only a small % of people use unemployment, or use the healthcare systems resources. My family votes liberal, yet none of us have ever used unemployment, we have used the healthcare system, but definitely for less than what weve paid into it, yet we still are liberals. All of your arguments have been purely idealogical though, and I dont expect any of them to be any different. The best you can come up with, is i think my liberal friends suck at life, or I want a shed more than the health and well being of my countrymates. You dont actually have any proof that your system would function better than the current one. Its easy to do this when the system you rip on has provided you with the ability to live a safe, comfortable life. Funny how that works. I don't have liberal friends, the people I referred to are not my friends. Ontario may be provincially Liberal, but don't Ontario Liberals have ~14 seats in parliament? I think the NDP has ~30 seats in Ontario(?) federally and at least I can admire their determination and passion for what they believe. But the Liberals have been sitting on the center for way too long and have let their principles become eroded by populist ideas. And its about time people started voting in accordance to what the roles of government should be instead of "social" values. Who cares what the religion of a candidate is as long as he has strong beliefs in what the government is supposed to do for people. Pro choice/pro life? The government shouldn't even be involved in this debate. Sexuality? Again, no reason for government to even include it in the docket. The problem you have when you say I have no proof of "my" system is that the current system has many of the qualities that "my" system has as well. So you could say that the current system is "my" system and it just got injected with a bunch of useless crap that doesn't belong. I am just trying to clean up and make better the current/"my" system.
I actually agree with you that gay marriage, abortion, and religion (which isnt a real factor in Canadian politics, for good reason) shouldnt really be political issues. However, the fact of the matter is, your social beliefs will dictate your policies. It would be great (but idealistic) for social beliefs to not be a factor in politics. However that isnt the case. So you need to make sure you align yourself with those that share similar beliefs. You insult liberals, yet were the ones pushing for these individual rights and freedoms you seemingly want to exist, while the conservatives continue to bring up gay marriage, abortion, etc... after they have been allowed and dealt with. You seemingly share in the liberal principal of the rights of women to choose, and of homosexuals to be allowed to marry. The liberals dealt with these issues, and that should be the end of it. Maybe we arent all that bad?
Or maybe we are, seeing as how you will not befriend anyone that identifies as being liberal.
|
On February 05 2012 06:14 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 05:48 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 05:29 Focuspants wrote:On February 05 2012 05:08 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. I agree, most "liberal" people I know have struggled and failed at life and as a result turn to the government to take care of them. Some of these people were staunch conservatives as well. I have to admit I have not met many students that were conservative, they usually want most or all of their tuition paid for by the government or pretend to not be able to find jobs after they are done school. I don't think it is proper to be calling people names, I am going to report you. I honestly detest the people that link liberal with being a leech. If you understood the Canadian political landscape whatsoever, youd realize the vast majority of the population is liberal, at least soically. The most variance is seen when you look at peoples fiscal beliefs. Most everyone is barely off center. The statement most liberal people struggle and fail at life cant be factually true, as MOST people are liberal, and our unemployment numbers arent all too high. Ontario is a Liberal party bastion, and is the most populated and overall productive province in the country. Most liberals dont vote for social policies out of self benefit. Somehow theres a liberal majority here, but only a small % of people use unemployment, or use the healthcare systems resources. My family votes liberal, yet none of us have ever used unemployment, we have used the healthcare system, but definitely for less than what weve paid into it, yet we still are liberals. All of your arguments have been purely idealogical though, and I dont expect any of them to be any different. The best you can come up with, is i think my liberal friends suck at life, or I want a shed more than the health and well being of my countrymates. You dont actually have any proof that your system would function better than the current one. Its easy to do this when the system you rip on has provided you with the ability to live a safe, comfortable life. Funny how that works. I don't have liberal friends, the people I referred to are not my friends. Ontario may be provincially Liberal, but don't Ontario Liberals have ~14 seats in parliament? I think the NDP has ~30 seats in Ontario(?) federally and at least I can admire their determination and passion for what they believe. But the Liberals have been sitting on the center for way too long and have let their principles become eroded by populist ideas. And its about time people started voting in accordance to what the roles of government should be instead of "social" values. Who cares what the religion of a candidate is as long as he has strong beliefs in what the government is supposed to do for people. Pro choice/pro life? The government shouldn't even be involved in this debate. Sexuality? Again, no reason for government to even include it in the docket. The problem you have when you say I have no proof of "my" system is that the current system has many of the qualities that "my" system has as well. So you could say that the current system is "my" system and it just got injected with a bunch of useless crap that doesn't belong. I am just trying to clean up and make better the current/"my" system. I actually agree with you that gay marriage, abortion, and religion (which isnt a real factor in Canadian politics, for good reason) shouldnt really be political issues. However, the fact of the matter is, your social beliefs will dictate your policies. It would be great (but idealistic) for social beliefs to not be a factor in politics. However that isnt the case. So you need to make sure you align yourself with those that share similar beliefs. You insult liberals, yet were the ones pushing for these individual rights and freedoms you seemingly want to exist, while the conservatives continue to bring up gay marriage, abortion, etc... after they have been allowed and dealt with. You seemingly share in the liberal principal of the rights of women to choose, and of homosexuals to be allowed to marry. The liberals dealt with these issues, and that should be the end of it. Maybe we arent all that bad? Or maybe we are, seeing as how you will not befriend anyone that identifies as being liberal.
I believe that the government doesn't have the right to govern over abortion, gay marriage etc. That doesn't mean that I think homosexuals should marry or that I support the a woman's right to choose, but who am I to comment on how people want to live their own lives.
We can be friends. It is not a conscience choice for me to not befriend a liberal, it is the ones that I know are not worth befriending.
|
Is there a Republican voter around here who can tell me why anybody would ever vote for Romney? The guy just basically took a dump on America's poor people and wants to massively reduce taxes for the rich. He is the perfect representation of the 1%. Assuming America is a democracy where the dude with the most votes wins, why the hell would a significant amount of people choose this guy?
|
On February 05 2012 06:28 Rabbet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 06:14 Focuspants wrote:On February 05 2012 05:48 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 05:29 Focuspants wrote:On February 05 2012 05:08 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. I agree, most "liberal" people I know have struggled and failed at life and as a result turn to the government to take care of them. Some of these people were staunch conservatives as well. I have to admit I have not met many students that were conservative, they usually want most or all of their tuition paid for by the government or pretend to not be able to find jobs after they are done school. I don't think it is proper to be calling people names, I am going to report you. I honestly detest the people that link liberal with being a leech. If you understood the Canadian political landscape whatsoever, youd realize the vast majority of the population is liberal, at least soically. The most variance is seen when you look at peoples fiscal beliefs. Most everyone is barely off center. The statement most liberal people struggle and fail at life cant be factually true, as MOST people are liberal, and our unemployment numbers arent all too high. Ontario is a Liberal party bastion, and is the most populated and overall productive province in the country. Most liberals dont vote for social policies out of self benefit. Somehow theres a liberal majority here, but only a small % of people use unemployment, or use the healthcare systems resources. My family votes liberal, yet none of us have ever used unemployment, we have used the healthcare system, but definitely for less than what weve paid into it, yet we still are liberals. All of your arguments have been purely idealogical though, and I dont expect any of them to be any different. The best you can come up with, is i think my liberal friends suck at life, or I want a shed more than the health and well being of my countrymates. You dont actually have any proof that your system would function better than the current one. Its easy to do this when the system you rip on has provided you with the ability to live a safe, comfortable life. Funny how that works. I don't have liberal friends, the people I referred to are not my friends. Ontario may be provincially Liberal, but don't Ontario Liberals have ~14 seats in parliament? I think the NDP has ~30 seats in Ontario(?) federally and at least I can admire their determination and passion for what they believe. But the Liberals have been sitting on the center for way too long and have let their principles become eroded by populist ideas. And its about time people started voting in accordance to what the roles of government should be instead of "social" values. Who cares what the religion of a candidate is as long as he has strong beliefs in what the government is supposed to do for people. Pro choice/pro life? The government shouldn't even be involved in this debate. Sexuality? Again, no reason for government to even include it in the docket. The problem you have when you say I have no proof of "my" system is that the current system has many of the qualities that "my" system has as well. So you could say that the current system is "my" system and it just got injected with a bunch of useless crap that doesn't belong. I am just trying to clean up and make better the current/"my" system. I actually agree with you that gay marriage, abortion, and religion (which isnt a real factor in Canadian politics, for good reason) shouldnt really be political issues. However, the fact of the matter is, your social beliefs will dictate your policies. It would be great (but idealistic) for social beliefs to not be a factor in politics. However that isnt the case. So you need to make sure you align yourself with those that share similar beliefs. You insult liberals, yet were the ones pushing for these individual rights and freedoms you seemingly want to exist, while the conservatives continue to bring up gay marriage, abortion, etc... after they have been allowed and dealt with. You seemingly share in the liberal principal of the rights of women to choose, and of homosexuals to be allowed to marry. The liberals dealt with these issues, and that should be the end of it. Maybe we arent all that bad? Or maybe we are, seeing as how you will not befriend anyone that identifies as being liberal. but who am I to comment on how people want to live their own lives.
Thats actually the guiding principal behind supporting these ideas.
|
On February 05 2012 06:30 PraefektMotus wrote:
Is there a Republican voter around here who can tell me why anybody would ever vote for Romney? The guy just basically took a dump on America's poor people and wants to massively reduce taxes for the rich. He is the perfect representation of the 1%. Assuming America is a democracy where the dude with the most votes wins, why the hell would a significant amount of people choose this guy?
"Corporations are people my friend".
On a more serious note, by convincing(some might say manipulate) them into voting against their own interest. Mass media does a decent job in the US(granted not just in the US, but "fair and balanced" is the more gross and fitting example here since it´s a thread about american politics).
|
On February 05 2012 06:30 PraefektMotus wrote:
Is there a Republican voter around here who can tell me why anybody would ever vote for Romney? The guy just basically took a dump on America's poor people and wants to massively reduce taxes for the rich. He is the perfect representation of the 1%. Assuming America is a democracy where the dude with the most votes wins, why the hell would a significant amount of people choose this guy?
Because there are only 2 choices and the guy is slick.
|
On February 05 2012 06:31 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 06:28 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 06:14 Focuspants wrote:On February 05 2012 05:48 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 05:29 Focuspants wrote:On February 05 2012 05:08 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. I agree, most "liberal" people I know have struggled and failed at life and as a result turn to the government to take care of them. Some of these people were staunch conservatives as well. I have to admit I have not met many students that were conservative, they usually want most or all of their tuition paid for by the government or pretend to not be able to find jobs after they are done school. I don't think it is proper to be calling people names, I am going to report you. I honestly detest the people that link liberal with being a leech. If you understood the Canadian political landscape whatsoever, youd realize the vast majority of the population is liberal, at least soically. The most variance is seen when you look at peoples fiscal beliefs. Most everyone is barely off center. The statement most liberal people struggle and fail at life cant be factually true, as MOST people are liberal, and our unemployment numbers arent all too high. Ontario is a Liberal party bastion, and is the most populated and overall productive province in the country. Most liberals dont vote for social policies out of self benefit. Somehow theres a liberal majority here, but only a small % of people use unemployment, or use the healthcare systems resources. My family votes liberal, yet none of us have ever used unemployment, we have used the healthcare system, but definitely for less than what weve paid into it, yet we still are liberals. All of your arguments have been purely idealogical though, and I dont expect any of them to be any different. The best you can come up with, is i think my liberal friends suck at life, or I want a shed more than the health and well being of my countrymates. You dont actually have any proof that your system would function better than the current one. Its easy to do this when the system you rip on has provided you with the ability to live a safe, comfortable life. Funny how that works. I don't have liberal friends, the people I referred to are not my friends. Ontario may be provincially Liberal, but don't Ontario Liberals have ~14 seats in parliament? I think the NDP has ~30 seats in Ontario(?) federally and at least I can admire their determination and passion for what they believe. But the Liberals have been sitting on the center for way too long and have let their principles become eroded by populist ideas. And its about time people started voting in accordance to what the roles of government should be instead of "social" values. Who cares what the religion of a candidate is as long as he has strong beliefs in what the government is supposed to do for people. Pro choice/pro life? The government shouldn't even be involved in this debate. Sexuality? Again, no reason for government to even include it in the docket. The problem you have when you say I have no proof of "my" system is that the current system has many of the qualities that "my" system has as well. So you could say that the current system is "my" system and it just got injected with a bunch of useless crap that doesn't belong. I am just trying to clean up and make better the current/"my" system. I actually agree with you that gay marriage, abortion, and religion (which isnt a real factor in Canadian politics, for good reason) shouldnt really be political issues. However, the fact of the matter is, your social beliefs will dictate your policies. It would be great (but idealistic) for social beliefs to not be a factor in politics. However that isnt the case. So you need to make sure you align yourself with those that share similar beliefs. You insult liberals, yet were the ones pushing for these individual rights and freedoms you seemingly want to exist, while the conservatives continue to bring up gay marriage, abortion, etc... after they have been allowed and dealt with. You seemingly share in the liberal principal of the rights of women to choose, and of homosexuals to be allowed to marry. The liberals dealt with these issues, and that should be the end of it. Maybe we arent all that bad? Or maybe we are, seeing as how you will not befriend anyone that identifies as being liberal. but who am I to comment on how people want to live their own lives. Thats actually the guiding principal behind supporting these ideas.
It is a guiding principle behind Libertarianism. What about being friends?
|
On February 05 2012 05:28 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 04:57 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Point in case, I too have a similar background and a graduate degree, but have seemingly reached the exact opposite conclusion about what needs to be done with our country. which degree in which field...
BS in financial mathematics and physics, MS in geophysics, PhD in petroleum engineering.
Most of my interest in economics stems from reading philosophical novels. Initially, it was Nietzsche's criticism of socialism in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Fountainhead by Rand. In turn this made me read books like The Law by Frederic Bastiat, The Road to Serfdom by Hayek, and The Failure of the New Economics by Henry Hazlitt. To me, these latter books seemed considerably more profound and based in the true nature of man than any of the Keynesian books I had read years earlier as a student.
|
Mitt Romney will probably win in the primaries and lose to Obama.
|
On February 05 2012 06:39 Rabbet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 06:30 PraefektMotus wrote:
Is there a Republican voter around here who can tell me why anybody would ever vote for Romney? The guy just basically took a dump on America's poor people and wants to massively reduce taxes for the rich. He is the perfect representation of the 1%. Assuming America is a democracy where the dude with the most votes wins, why the hell would a significant amount of people choose this guy? Because there are only 2 choices and the guy is slick.
During the Republican nominations, yes. But in the end he'll run against Obama. That's what I mean, why take this guy over Obama? At least Obama gives a shit?
|
On February 05 2012 06:51 PraefektMotus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 06:39 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 06:30 PraefektMotus wrote:
Is there a Republican voter around here who can tell me why anybody would ever vote for Romney? The guy just basically took a dump on America's poor people and wants to massively reduce taxes for the rich. He is the perfect representation of the 1%. Assuming America is a democracy where the dude with the most votes wins, why the hell would a significant amount of people choose this guy? Because there are only 2 choices and the guy is slick. During the Republican nominations, yes. But in the end he'll run against Obama. That's what I mean, why take this guy over Obama? At least Obama gives a shit?
The nomination is actually the time when most choice is available to get a candidate that most represents your own belief. If I had to choose between Romney and Obama I would choose neither.
|
On February 05 2012 06:55 Rabbet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 06:51 PraefektMotus wrote:On February 05 2012 06:39 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 06:30 PraefektMotus wrote:
Is there a Republican voter around here who can tell me why anybody would ever vote for Romney? The guy just basically took a dump on America's poor people and wants to massively reduce taxes for the rich. He is the perfect representation of the 1%. Assuming America is a democracy where the dude with the most votes wins, why the hell would a significant amount of people choose this guy? Because there are only 2 choices and the guy is slick. During the Republican nominations, yes. But in the end he'll run against Obama. That's what I mean, why take this guy over Obama? At least Obama gives a shit? The nomination is actually the time when most choice is available to get a candidate that most represents your own belief. If I had to choose between Romney and Obama I would choose neither.
If I was an American I´d do the same I guess. After dismantling habeas corpus, tending to the needs of his wall street friends and not being able to bring change to neither foreign policies(apart from toning down a bit - how is he different than Bush?) nor interior(he could have done Universal HealthCare with his approval rating at the beginning - before it was called ObamaCare. But he hesitated and paid the price for his naivety of searching "non partisan solutions" with Reps whose only job is it seems to deny him his 2nd term.) At best I see Obama as the lesser of two evils. But watching Mitt Romney making one mistake after another and Newt shitting on his parade, it just makes it easier to swallow the Obama pill.(If I were American)
|
On February 05 2012 06:04 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 05:03 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:58 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 06:49 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:41 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 06:16 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:00 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 05:48 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
I replied to it. The "right to health-care" as you defined it wasn't a right, if you would have used quotations you could have avoided the misunderstanding which resulted in you arguing semantics, but yeah you're right in the fact that we're done with that now, because like I stated, I have no interest in arguing about semantics with you. No, you did not reply to it, and that's not what we were arguing about: we were arguing about your assertion that the rights of healthcare providers would be violated, while YOU were trying to derail the discussion into a debate about semantics and what constitutes a right. Nice to see you're still trying to avoid having to defend your claim! I said that a right to healthcare would violate the rights of the health-care providers. However, since there's no actual right to healthcare anywhere right now I can't give you an example of the rights of health-care providers being violated, because there's no such right. I can only give you an example of the risks and expenses being socialized amongst the general population as a result of the government trying to deliver on their promise of this privilege. Erm, at no point in our discussion did I ask for an example of the rights of healthcare providers being violated today. Did you originally stop replying to me because you couldn't rewrite our discussion when it was still going on? In my last posts I defined very precisely what kind of right to healthcare the people you replied to were referring to, and I explained why it would not violate the rights of the healthcare providers. I consistently refused to let you derail the discussion into a debate about what constitutes a right or about taxation. You then stopped replying. and once you finally described what you were talking I agreed that this doesn't infringe on rights of health-care providers, because what you were describing wasn't a right, but a government guaranteed privilege. It had been defined in the original posts you decided to reply to as well. It was a right. See? You're trying to argue semantics again. You seem to forget that I quoted the Merriam-Webster entry for "right", which supported my (and the other poster's) position and invalidated your claim that it would not qualify as a "right". That's probably one of the reasons you stopped replying - you couldn't even argue semantics anymore. Well I dunno some of the definitions are this the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled & something that one may properly claim as due and this doesn't quite sound like what socialized medicine actually is. There you go - Kiarip uses a straw man again. The words "socialized medicine" never came out of my mouth. You tried arguing semantics when confronted with the fact that your original statement was invalid: you started to argue the "right to healthcare" we were referring could not be called a "right". The definitions featured in the Merriam-Webster dictionary proved you wrong. Don't try to switch the subject of the debate again, to "socialized medicine" or anything else. I only called it socialized medicine because the "right to healthcare" as defined in that video didn't at all fit the definition of a what a right is according to Webster dictionary, so I don't know what else to call it. you can stop looking silly now... This discussion has been long finished. "right to healthcare" isn't a right. Freedom of speech is a right. Pursuit of happiness is a right, freedom to not be detained without being provided a lawyer is a right... healthcare can't be a right. Are you serious? Anything and everything can be defined as a right. At the end of the day rights are only rights if they are respected and as such all rights are dependant on recognition of the community. Whether something is or should be a right hinges on how well you can argue for it and if the community recognizes it or not. There are very strong arguments for health care to be concidered a right, but it doesn't seem like the American community is going to recognize it as a right and thus it isn't. Thanks for letting me apply some logic. Making posts like this one really does brighten my day.
When you're formulating a political theory of rights you have to consider whether any of the proposed rights contradict each other. If you go back to the original formulation of rights under John Locke you'll notice there's startlingly few. But people have been "adding" rights ever since then. Locke's proposed rights created a very elegant political philosophy, but the more rights you try to add the more difficult it gets to make sure none of them contradict each other.
The problem that people have with suggesting healthcare be a right is that is conflicts with the right to freedom. If you mandate that a doctor HAS to provide medical care to anyone, then you're infringing on that doctors right to freedom. This is why you'll occasionally see libertarians hyperbolically refer to certain healthcare systems as imposing slavery.
There are many ways to try to justify government healthcare programs, but an appeal to healthcare as a natural right isn't the way to do it.
|
On February 05 2012 07:16 Fighter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 06:04 HellRoxYa wrote:On February 05 2012 05:03 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:58 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 06:49 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:41 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 06:16 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:00 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, you did not reply to it, and that's not what we were arguing about: we were arguing about your assertion that the rights of healthcare providers would be violated, while YOU were trying to derail the discussion into a debate about semantics and what constitutes a right. Nice to see you're still trying to avoid having to defend your claim! I said that a right to healthcare would violate the rights of the health-care providers. However, since there's no actual right to healthcare anywhere right now I can't give you an example of the rights of health-care providers being violated, because there's no such right. I can only give you an example of the risks and expenses being socialized amongst the general population as a result of the government trying to deliver on their promise of this privilege. Erm, at no point in our discussion did I ask for an example of the rights of healthcare providers being violated today. Did you originally stop replying to me because you couldn't rewrite our discussion when it was still going on? In my last posts I defined very precisely what kind of right to healthcare the people you replied to were referring to, and I explained why it would not violate the rights of the healthcare providers. I consistently refused to let you derail the discussion into a debate about what constitutes a right or about taxation. You then stopped replying. and once you finally described what you were talking I agreed that this doesn't infringe on rights of health-care providers, because what you were describing wasn't a right, but a government guaranteed privilege. It had been defined in the original posts you decided to reply to as well. It was a right. See? You're trying to argue semantics again. You seem to forget that I quoted the Merriam-Webster entry for "right", which supported my (and the other poster's) position and invalidated your claim that it would not qualify as a "right". That's probably one of the reasons you stopped replying - you couldn't even argue semantics anymore. Well I dunno some of the definitions are this the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled & something that one may properly claim as due and this doesn't quite sound like what socialized medicine actually is. There you go - Kiarip uses a straw man again. The words "socialized medicine" never came out of my mouth. You tried arguing semantics when confronted with the fact that your original statement was invalid: you started to argue the "right to healthcare" we were referring could not be called a "right". The definitions featured in the Merriam-Webster dictionary proved you wrong. Don't try to switch the subject of the debate again, to "socialized medicine" or anything else. I only called it socialized medicine because the "right to healthcare" as defined in that video didn't at all fit the definition of a what a right is according to Webster dictionary, so I don't know what else to call it. you can stop looking silly now... This discussion has been long finished. "right to healthcare" isn't a right. Freedom of speech is a right. Pursuit of happiness is a right, freedom to not be detained without being provided a lawyer is a right... healthcare can't be a right. Are you serious? Anything and everything can be defined as a right. At the end of the day rights are only rights if they are respected and as such all rights are dependant on recognition of the community. Whether something is or should be a right hinges on how well you can argue for it and if the community recognizes it or not. There are very strong arguments for health care to be concidered a right, but it doesn't seem like the American community is going to recognize it as a right and thus it isn't. Thanks for letting me apply some logic. Making posts like this one really does brighten my day. When you're formulating a political theory of rights you have to consider whether any of the proposed rights contradict each other. If you go back to the original formulation of rights under John Locke you'll notice there's startlingly few. But people have been "adding" rights ever since then. Locke's proposed rights created a very elegant political philosophy, but the more rights you try to add the more difficult it gets to make sure none of them contradict each other. The problem that people have with suggesting healthcare be a right is that is conflicts with the right to freedom. If you mandate that a doctor HAS to provide medical care to anyone, then you're infringing on that doctors right to freedom. This is why you'll occasionally see libertarians hyperbolically refer to certain healthcare systems as imposing slavery. There are many ways to try to justify government healthcare programs, but an appeal to healthcare as a natural right isn't the way to do it.
The point is that a Lockean system of justice is just as socially constructed as any other conception of justice. He might refer to it as 'natural law', but property rights are in no way 'natural'. They are an historical, social agreement between members of a society and are dependant on a certain interpretation of freedom.
'Natural law' just refers to rights that certain authors claim to be independant of time and place, yet property rights are by all means a relatively modern invention (compared to pre-history). In this sense, anything can be constructed as being natural.
It is not true that adding 'more' rights leads to a logically inconsistent system. Philosophers like Rawls and Dworkin have come up with systems of rights entirely compatible with universal healthcare, based on different assumptions. The fact that you subscribe to a Lockean worldview does not invalidate others.
|
On February 05 2012 07:16 Fighter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 06:04 HellRoxYa wrote:On February 05 2012 05:03 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:58 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 06:49 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:41 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 06:16 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:00 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, you did not reply to it, and that's not what we were arguing about: we were arguing about your assertion that the rights of healthcare providers would be violated, while YOU were trying to derail the discussion into a debate about semantics and what constitutes a right. Nice to see you're still trying to avoid having to defend your claim! I said that a right to healthcare would violate the rights of the health-care providers. However, since there's no actual right to healthcare anywhere right now I can't give you an example of the rights of health-care providers being violated, because there's no such right. I can only give you an example of the risks and expenses being socialized amongst the general population as a result of the government trying to deliver on their promise of this privilege. Erm, at no point in our discussion did I ask for an example of the rights of healthcare providers being violated today. Did you originally stop replying to me because you couldn't rewrite our discussion when it was still going on? In my last posts I defined very precisely what kind of right to healthcare the people you replied to were referring to, and I explained why it would not violate the rights of the healthcare providers. I consistently refused to let you derail the discussion into a debate about what constitutes a right or about taxation. You then stopped replying. and once you finally described what you were talking I agreed that this doesn't infringe on rights of health-care providers, because what you were describing wasn't a right, but a government guaranteed privilege. It had been defined in the original posts you decided to reply to as well. It was a right. See? You're trying to argue semantics again. You seem to forget that I quoted the Merriam-Webster entry for "right", which supported my (and the other poster's) position and invalidated your claim that it would not qualify as a "right". That's probably one of the reasons you stopped replying - you couldn't even argue semantics anymore. Well I dunno some of the definitions are this the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled & something that one may properly claim as due and this doesn't quite sound like what socialized medicine actually is. There you go - Kiarip uses a straw man again. The words "socialized medicine" never came out of my mouth. You tried arguing semantics when confronted with the fact that your original statement was invalid: you started to argue the "right to healthcare" we were referring could not be called a "right". The definitions featured in the Merriam-Webster dictionary proved you wrong. Don't try to switch the subject of the debate again, to "socialized medicine" or anything else. I only called it socialized medicine because the "right to healthcare" as defined in that video didn't at all fit the definition of a what a right is according to Webster dictionary, so I don't know what else to call it. you can stop looking silly now... This discussion has been long finished. "right to healthcare" isn't a right. Freedom of speech is a right. Pursuit of happiness is a right, freedom to not be detained without being provided a lawyer is a right... healthcare can't be a right. Are you serious? Anything and everything can be defined as a right. At the end of the day rights are only rights if they are respected and as such all rights are dependant on recognition of the community. Whether something is or should be a right hinges on how well you can argue for it and if the community recognizes it or not. There are very strong arguments for health care to be concidered a right, but it doesn't seem like the American community is going to recognize it as a right and thus it isn't. Thanks for letting me apply some logic. Making posts like this one really does brighten my day. When you're formulating a political theory of rights you have to consider whether any of the proposed rights contradict each other. If you go back to the original formulation of rights under John Locke you'll notice there's startlingly few. But people have been "adding" rights ever since then. Locke's proposed rights created a very elegant political philosophy, but the more rights you try to add the more difficult it gets to make sure none of them contradict each other. The problem that people have with suggesting healthcare be a right is that is conflicts with the right to freedom. If you mandate that a doctor HAS to provide medical care to anyone, then you're infringing on that doctors right to freedom. This is why you'll occasionally see libertarians hyperbolically refer to certain healthcare systems as imposing slavery. There are many ways to try to justify government healthcare programs, but an appeal to healthcare as a natural right isn't the way to do it.
Every right infringes on certain freedoms. Hobbes would say that your right to have your life infringes on my right to reasonably assume that you might harm me and pre-emptively act to stop you from doing so. This is how society works. You sacrifice certain rights for a certain level of security.
Not only that, the obvious answer to "well the doctors are losing freedoms too!" is just this - when you choose to be a doctor, you have to just deal with it. If you live in a universal healthcare system, it is your job to give healthcare to anyone who walks through the door. When I trained to become an EMT, I was made well aware that it is my job to give medical assistance to anyone in need, and if I chose not to (even if I was off duty), I could be found guilty of negligence. It's the same thing with defense lawyers - they are absolutely required to give scumbag criminals the best possible defense they can, and they can be sued if they don't. Why? Because it is there job and they accepted it. There is really no difference between the right to a competent attourney and the right to healthcare, should a society decide that healthcare is a right.
|
On February 05 2012 09:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 07:16 Fighter wrote:On February 05 2012 06:04 HellRoxYa wrote:On February 05 2012 05:03 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:58 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 06:49 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:41 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 06:16 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:00 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
I said that a right to healthcare would violate the rights of the health-care providers. However, since there's no actual right to healthcare anywhere right now I can't give you an example of the rights of health-care providers being violated, because there's no such right. I can only give you an example of the risks and expenses being socialized amongst the general population as a result of the government trying to deliver on their promise of this privilege. Erm, at no point in our discussion did I ask for an example of the rights of healthcare providers being violated today. Did you originally stop replying to me because you couldn't rewrite our discussion when it was still going on? In my last posts I defined very precisely what kind of right to healthcare the people you replied to were referring to, and I explained why it would not violate the rights of the healthcare providers. I consistently refused to let you derail the discussion into a debate about what constitutes a right or about taxation. You then stopped replying. and once you finally described what you were talking I agreed that this doesn't infringe on rights of health-care providers, because what you were describing wasn't a right, but a government guaranteed privilege. It had been defined in the original posts you decided to reply to as well. It was a right. See? You're trying to argue semantics again. You seem to forget that I quoted the Merriam-Webster entry for "right", which supported my (and the other poster's) position and invalidated your claim that it would not qualify as a "right". That's probably one of the reasons you stopped replying - you couldn't even argue semantics anymore. Well I dunno some of the definitions are this the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled & something that one may properly claim as due and this doesn't quite sound like what socialized medicine actually is. There you go - Kiarip uses a straw man again. The words "socialized medicine" never came out of my mouth. You tried arguing semantics when confronted with the fact that your original statement was invalid: you started to argue the "right to healthcare" we were referring could not be called a "right". The definitions featured in the Merriam-Webster dictionary proved you wrong. Don't try to switch the subject of the debate again, to "socialized medicine" or anything else. I only called it socialized medicine because the "right to healthcare" as defined in that video didn't at all fit the definition of a what a right is according to Webster dictionary, so I don't know what else to call it. you can stop looking silly now... This discussion has been long finished. "right to healthcare" isn't a right. Freedom of speech is a right. Pursuit of happiness is a right, freedom to not be detained without being provided a lawyer is a right... healthcare can't be a right. Are you serious? Anything and everything can be defined as a right. At the end of the day rights are only rights if they are respected and as such all rights are dependant on recognition of the community. Whether something is or should be a right hinges on how well you can argue for it and if the community recognizes it or not. There are very strong arguments for health care to be concidered a right, but it doesn't seem like the American community is going to recognize it as a right and thus it isn't. Thanks for letting me apply some logic. Making posts like this one really does brighten my day. When you're formulating a political theory of rights you have to consider whether any of the proposed rights contradict each other. If you go back to the original formulation of rights under John Locke you'll notice there's startlingly few. But people have been "adding" rights ever since then. Locke's proposed rights created a very elegant political philosophy, but the more rights you try to add the more difficult it gets to make sure none of them contradict each other. The problem that people have with suggesting healthcare be a right is that is conflicts with the right to freedom. If you mandate that a doctor HAS to provide medical care to anyone, then you're infringing on that doctors right to freedom. This is why you'll occasionally see libertarians hyperbolically refer to certain healthcare systems as imposing slavery. There are many ways to try to justify government healthcare programs, but an appeal to healthcare as a natural right isn't the way to do it. Every right infringes on certain freedoms. Hobbes would say that your right to have your life infringes on my right to reasonably assume that you might harm me and pre-emptively act to stop you from doing so. This is how society works. You sacrifice certain rights for a certain level of security. Not only that, the blatantly obvious answer to "well the doctors are losing freedoms too!" is just this - when you choose to be a doctor, you can suck it the fuck up. If you live in a universal healthcare system, it is your job to give healthcare to anyone who walks through the door. When I trained to become an EMT, I was made well aware that it is my job to give medical assistance to anyone in need, and if I chose not to (even if I was off duty), I could be found guilty of negligence. It's the same thing with defense lawyers - they are absolutely required to give scumbag criminals the best possible defense they can, and they can be sued if they don't. Why? Because it is there job and they accepted it. There is really no difference between the right to a competent attourney and the right to healthcare, should a society decide that healthcare is a right.
The reason a lawyer is provided if you cannot afford one is because law enforcement, which is a proper role of government, is fallible. But, defense lawyers are not compelled to work for any client that walks through their doors, there is usually an interview process and an agreement is drafted like any other scope of work in other fields.
As far as helping those in need, as an ordinary citizen you are never forced to offer assistance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
