|
United States43907 Posts
Also you'll be pleased to know that the international community did stop the sale of weapons to Rwanda. In doing so they led to a bit of information which has caused academia to radically reassess the relation between civilisation and atrocities. Before Rwanda it was believed that the Holocaust was the result of an industrial society in which people are numbers. After Rwanda it was undeniable that if you were eager enough you could kill millions of people with machetes.
|
United States43907 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:59 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:55 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:43 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:37 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:15 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:57 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:51 Caller wrote:
-well it did, until the civil war resumed with an Ethiopean-backed and Islamic-backed government shoved down the people's throats. Here's another derail, but the Ethiopoean/ US backed regime is the one that ousted the Islamic regime, which had actually kept the country stabilized. They're not the same group. In fairness the Courts were committing widespread human rights abuses. Stable doesn't mean good. I believe that the US intervention in Somalia was one of the noblest acts of American foreign policy, a sign that after Rwanda the world was finally going to take responsibility for preventing this kind of thing. But after a few photos of dead Americans hit the media it became untenable. The censorship on those photos was the most deplorable thing about it. It's fine to show an American corpse stripped naked and dragged through the street but you can't show his penis. Wtf priorities?! Yet you are against the Iraq War I presume? In which you made the case that stability doesn't mean good, and you do know Saddam massacred his people. If you follow this logic you give creed to interventionist pre-emptive aggression into any State that has Human Rights violations whatever the severity (subjective). This is abhorrable. You basically give jurisprudence to intervene militarily in such countries currently as China, Darfur, and Egypt. There is only one prudent foreign policy and that is Non-interventionism. Free trade is key to regional and world peace. America should not be a police state, and is what is exactly the opposite of our founding. Do not engage in foreign entanglements, alliances, etc. No republic can endure such indominable stresses and survive. This is the cause for the destruction of Rome and every other great country. I am actually surprised to hear this from you. So if you were the President of the United States a few decades ago and your CIA advisor warned you of the likely genocide of millions in Rwanda you would accept that as unfortunate and unavoidable and go on selling weapons? I would not be a willing accomplice and therefore stop selling weapons to the aggressor however, I would continue trade in other goods and services. I would not intervene in any way in the affairs of their country. I believe if you have to use military force then you must have Congress Declare an act of War. It is my belief that if someone with power stands by and does nothing while their neighbour commits atrocities they are, through their inaction, consenting to it. The United States is like a young man in the prime of his life with a large collection of handguns. When his old weak neighbour starts murdering his young children he ought to step in to prevent it. This is of course limited by pragmatism, as is everything in life. But in the case of Rwanda, the means were there and the scale of the genocide that would eventually be committed more than justified intervention. Rwanda is not a neighbor to the US. Your analagy fails. You don't want to start precedent where we intervene in another countries affairs based on subjective notions of the severity of atrocities. As President of course I would be harshly condemning the actions of the Government, but ultimately it is up to the people to throw off the shackles of oppression. If they wish to do so; which most would, then I am not opposed in sending aid in the form of monetary and material goods, however never sending military forces. We threw off the tyranny of our oppressors with limited help until the very end from the French. I would do no more no less for any other peoples. It sets too dangerous a precedent.
It's a small world. Everyone is everyones neighbour.
I agree that you cannot easily quantify how much is too much when it comes to atrocities. That said, when you're in 7 figures it's not so difficult.
You need a certain degree of prosperity before you can throw off the shackles of oppression. The Irish didn't rebel during the potato famine. It was after 30 good years of population growth and stability that the independence movement recovered.
Your idea of the American War of Independence is laughably wrong. There was no great ideological conflict, just a few shortsighted British ministers. Within a generation the British Government was freely giving away the concessions you originally asked for.
|
In an individual level yea interventionism can be "justified", but in a governmental scale of nations, its like, bob hit my friend john, so I'm gonna intervene by hitting bob's friend erick, and it becomes a slugfest
I am against the initiation of force period, self defense is fine, voluntary and consenting actions are fine, government is not fine, it's just a moral standpoint. I'm not vouching for complete removal of government to be done tomorrow or the day after, it's just a moral principle that I understand. I understand that government is force, a not-so-necessary evil anymore, and reckon the need to reduce it and eventually remove it. Not expand it, its retarded to expand any mafia at this point when it's obvious it doesn't work for anything.
Humans are so beyond force and coercion, if we don't ever recognize that then we'll forever live with what we deserve, a mafia government that takes away everything from us, to provide us with everything we didn't ask for.
|
Canada2492 Posts
Aegrean what does your argument have to do with healthcare reform in the US?
The current healthcare system is not efficient and the people are not receiving equal treatment in the medical respect. Of course in a capitalist society the richer people get better treatment, however, in the case of medical attention it's obviously necessary to "bend" a rule and have some government intervention in order for people to have their needs met.
|
On August 19 2009 13:04 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:59 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:55 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:43 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:37 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:15 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:57 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:51 Caller wrote:
-well it did, until the civil war resumed with an Ethiopean-backed and Islamic-backed government shoved down the people's throats. Here's another derail, but the Ethiopoean/ US backed regime is the one that ousted the Islamic regime, which had actually kept the country stabilized. They're not the same group. In fairness the Courts were committing widespread human rights abuses. Stable doesn't mean good. I believe that the US intervention in Somalia was one of the noblest acts of American foreign policy, a sign that after Rwanda the world was finally going to take responsibility for preventing this kind of thing. But after a few photos of dead Americans hit the media it became untenable. The censorship on those photos was the most deplorable thing about it. It's fine to show an American corpse stripped naked and dragged through the street but you can't show his penis. Wtf priorities?! Yet you are against the Iraq War I presume? In which you made the case that stability doesn't mean good, and you do know Saddam massacred his people. If you follow this logic you give creed to interventionist pre-emptive aggression into any State that has Human Rights violations whatever the severity (subjective). This is abhorrable. You basically give jurisprudence to intervene militarily in such countries currently as China, Darfur, and Egypt. There is only one prudent foreign policy and that is Non-interventionism. Free trade is key to regional and world peace. America should not be a police state, and is what is exactly the opposite of our founding. Do not engage in foreign entanglements, alliances, etc. No republic can endure such indominable stresses and survive. This is the cause for the destruction of Rome and every other great country. I am actually surprised to hear this from you. So if you were the President of the United States a few decades ago and your CIA advisor warned you of the likely genocide of millions in Rwanda you would accept that as unfortunate and unavoidable and go on selling weapons? I would not be a willing accomplice and therefore stop selling weapons to the aggressor however, I would continue trade in other goods and services. I would not intervene in any way in the affairs of their country. I believe if you have to use military force then you must have Congress Declare an act of War. It is my belief that if someone with power stands by and does nothing while their neighbour commits atrocities they are, through their inaction, consenting to it. The United States is like a young man in the prime of his life with a large collection of handguns. When his old weak neighbour starts murdering his young children he ought to step in to prevent it. This is of course limited by pragmatism, as is everything in life. But in the case of Rwanda, the means were there and the scale of the genocide that would eventually be committed more than justified intervention. Rwanda is not a neighbor to the US. Your analagy fails. You don't want to start precedent where we intervene in another countries affairs based on subjective notions of the severity of atrocities. As President of course I would be harshly condemning the actions of the Government, but ultimately it is up to the people to throw off the shackles of oppression. If they wish to do so; which most would, then I am not opposed in sending aid in the form of monetary and material goods, however never sending military forces. We threw off the tyranny of our oppressors with limited help until the very end from the French. I would do no more no less for any other peoples. It sets too dangerous a precedent. It's a small world. Everyone is everyones neighbour. I agree that you cannot easily quantify how much is too much when it comes to atrocities. That said, when you're in 7 figures it's not so difficult. You need a certain degree of prosperity before you can throw off the shackles of oppression. The Irish didn't rebel during the potato famine. It was after 30 good years of population growth and stability that the independence movement recovered. Your idea of the American War of Independence is laughably wrong. There was no great ideological conflict, just a few shortsighted British ministers. Within a generation the British Government was freely giving away the concessions you originally asked for.
It is not laughably wrong. The Founders were a minority movement that grew as the war progressed. They sacrificed their honor, wealth, and lives for the cause of freedom and liberty. Many died, most lost their fortunes.
It took far more than a Generation. 1776 was the Declaration of Independence, shortly after the Revolutionary War started. 36 years later (Which is more than a generation), the War of 1812 occurred. Britain still had no aspirations of letting America become independant. They only ceded because it was not economically viable for them; they would lose more than what they gained no matter. It wasn't like Britain had suddenly had an ideological change of heart and suddenly started to become a benevolent tyranny; there is no such thing. America and Britain were so far apart ideologically then and now (well, perhaps not so much now because we are both socialist. Both Governments spend 45%+ of GDP in the Government sector.) However, we have a tradition and memory here in America of what liberty is, what it means, and what sacrifice and blood means in regards to Liberty and Freedom, which Britain does not. We can look on our past for the future and rewrite the course we are currently on.
So, no, my view is in line with historical evidence.
PS I'm not sure you know this, but before the Declaration, British soldiers were allowed by law to write their own search warrants, allowed to confiscate property and force people into giving them haven, and between the Stamp Act and other tyrannous intrusions was the major driving force of the Declaration.
|
United States43907 Posts
On August 19 2009 13:14 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 13:04 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:59 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:55 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:43 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:37 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:15 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:57 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:51 Caller wrote:
-well it did, until the civil war resumed with an Ethiopean-backed and Islamic-backed government shoved down the people's throats. Here's another derail, but the Ethiopoean/ US backed regime is the one that ousted the Islamic regime, which had actually kept the country stabilized. They're not the same group. In fairness the Courts were committing widespread human rights abuses. Stable doesn't mean good. I believe that the US intervention in Somalia was one of the noblest acts of American foreign policy, a sign that after Rwanda the world was finally going to take responsibility for preventing this kind of thing. But after a few photos of dead Americans hit the media it became untenable. The censorship on those photos was the most deplorable thing about it. It's fine to show an American corpse stripped naked and dragged through the street but you can't show his penis. Wtf priorities?! Yet you are against the Iraq War I presume? In which you made the case that stability doesn't mean good, and you do know Saddam massacred his people. If you follow this logic you give creed to interventionist pre-emptive aggression into any State that has Human Rights violations whatever the severity (subjective). This is abhorrable. You basically give jurisprudence to intervene militarily in such countries currently as China, Darfur, and Egypt. There is only one prudent foreign policy and that is Non-interventionism. Free trade is key to regional and world peace. America should not be a police state, and is what is exactly the opposite of our founding. Do not engage in foreign entanglements, alliances, etc. No republic can endure such indominable stresses and survive. This is the cause for the destruction of Rome and every other great country. I am actually surprised to hear this from you. So if you were the President of the United States a few decades ago and your CIA advisor warned you of the likely genocide of millions in Rwanda you would accept that as unfortunate and unavoidable and go on selling weapons? I would not be a willing accomplice and therefore stop selling weapons to the aggressor however, I would continue trade in other goods and services. I would not intervene in any way in the affairs of their country. I believe if you have to use military force then you must have Congress Declare an act of War. It is my belief that if someone with power stands by and does nothing while their neighbour commits atrocities they are, through their inaction, consenting to it. The United States is like a young man in the prime of his life with a large collection of handguns. When his old weak neighbour starts murdering his young children he ought to step in to prevent it. This is of course limited by pragmatism, as is everything in life. But in the case of Rwanda, the means were there and the scale of the genocide that would eventually be committed more than justified intervention. Rwanda is not a neighbor to the US. Your analagy fails. You don't want to start precedent where we intervene in another countries affairs based on subjective notions of the severity of atrocities. As President of course I would be harshly condemning the actions of the Government, but ultimately it is up to the people to throw off the shackles of oppression. If they wish to do so; which most would, then I am not opposed in sending aid in the form of monetary and material goods, however never sending military forces. We threw off the tyranny of our oppressors with limited help until the very end from the French. I would do no more no less for any other peoples. It sets too dangerous a precedent. It's a small world. Everyone is everyones neighbour. I agree that you cannot easily quantify how much is too much when it comes to atrocities. That said, when you're in 7 figures it's not so difficult. You need a certain degree of prosperity before you can throw off the shackles of oppression. The Irish didn't rebel during the potato famine. It was after 30 good years of population growth and stability that the independence movement recovered. Your idea of the American War of Independence is laughably wrong. There was no great ideological conflict, just a few shortsighted British ministers. Within a generation the British Government was freely giving away the concessions you originally asked for. It is not laughably wrong. The Founders were a minority movement that grew as the war progressed. They sacrificed their honor, wealth, and lives for the cause of freedom and liberty. Many died, most lost their fortunes. It took far more than a Generation. 1776 was the Declaration of Independence, shortly after the Revolutionary War started. 36 years later (Which is more than a generation), the War of 1812 occurred. Britain still had no aspirations of letting America become independant. They only ceded because it was not economically viable for them; they would lose more than what they gained no matter. It wasn't like Britain had suddenly had an ideological change of heart and suddenly started to become a benevolent tyranny; there is no such thing. America and Britain were so far apart ideologically then and now (well, perhaps not so much now because we are both socialist. Both Governments spend 45%+ of GDP in the Government sector.) However, we have a tradition and memory here in America of what liberty is, what it means, and what sacrifice and blood means in regards to Liberty and Freedom, which Britain does not. We can look on our past for the future and rewrite the course we are currently on. So, no, my view is in line with historical evidence. PS I'm not sure you know this, but before the Declaration, British soldiers were allowed by law to write their own search warrants, allowed to confiscate property and force people into giving them haven, and between the Stamp Act and other tyrannous intrusions was the major driving force of the Declaration.
I find it odd that you say that you're the country with a history understanding what it means to sacrifice blood for liberty. To a subject of the country which destroyed itself as a world power in the name of democracy and an (at the time) unwinnable war against three of the most powerful countries in the world. There is more to liberty than simply doing what is best for you. There is more to sacrifice than dying in your own best interests. What should the British people care of the fall of Poland?
Although you are right that the revolution was always a minority movement, led by the rich.
|
On August 19 2009 13:10 ShaperofDreams wrote:
Aegrean what does your argument have to do with healthcare reform in the US?
The current healthcare system is not efficient and the people are not receiving equal treatment in the medical respect. Of course in a capitalist society the richer people get better treatment, however, in the case of medical attention it's obviously necessary to "bend" a rule and have some government intervention in order for people to have their needs met.
Because as a matter of political and philosophical conviction I am opposed to all expansion of Government, no matter the hypothetical "efficiencies" it may become (No Government program is efficient). The free-market works in every other sector despite Government interference. The greatest period of growth in the US was between 1870 and 1900 which was a time in which there was minimal Government interference. Right around the turn of the century the Progressive moment picked up steam and started instituting all of its rules, regulations, expansions, etc. such as Clayton Sherman Acts, centralization of banking, and other anti-competition measures which were lobbied for because major companies did not like the competition. In just about every sector during that time prices were being drastically reduced. Today, pretty much the only sector in which prices are being reduced is in technology, such as computers and the like. Wonder why...how much regulation you think is involved there? Less so than others.
So, yes, it has everything to do with healthcare reform. Let the free-market do what it does best and leave it unhampered. Tort reform, abolishment of medicare, medicaid, SCHIP, pricing regulations, across state competition, etc.
|
On August 19 2009 13:20 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 13:14 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 13:04 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:59 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:55 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:43 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:37 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:15 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:57 Jibba wrote:
[quote]
Here's another derail, but the Ethiopoean/US backed regime is the one that ousted the Islamic regime, which had actually kept the country stabilized. They're not the same group. In fairness the Courts were committing widespread human rights abuses. Stable doesn't mean good. I believe that the US intervention in Somalia was one of the noblest acts of American foreign policy, a sign that after Rwanda the world was finally going to take responsibility for preventing this kind of thing. But after a few photos of dead Americans hit the media it became untenable. The censorship on those photos was the most deplorable thing about it. It's fine to show an American corpse stripped naked and dragged through the street but you can't show his penis. Wtf priorities?! Yet you are against the Iraq War I presume? In which you made the case that stability doesn't mean good, and you do know Saddam massacred his people. If you follow this logic you give creed to interventionist pre-emptive aggression into any State that has Human Rights violations whatever the severity (subjective). This is abhorrable. You basically give jurisprudence to intervene militarily in such countries currently as China, Darfur, and Egypt. There is only one prudent foreign policy and that is Non-interventionism. Free trade is key to regional and world peace. America should not be a police state, and is what is exactly the opposite of our founding. Do not engage in foreign entanglements, alliances, etc. No republic can endure such indominable stresses and survive. This is the cause for the destruction of Rome and every other great country. I am actually surprised to hear this from you. So if you were the President of the United States a few decades ago and your CIA advisor warned you of the likely genocide of millions in Rwanda you would accept that as unfortunate and unavoidable and go on selling weapons? I would not be a willing accomplice and therefore stop selling weapons to the aggressor however, I would continue trade in other goods and services. I would not intervene in any way in the affairs of their country. I believe if you have to use military force then you must have Congress Declare an act of War. It is my belief that if someone with power stands by and does nothing while their neighbour commits atrocities they are, through their inaction, consenting to it. The United States is like a young man in the prime of his life with a large collection of handguns. When his old weak neighbour starts murdering his young children he ought to step in to prevent it. This is of course limited by pragmatism, as is everything in life. But in the case of Rwanda, the means were there and the scale of the genocide that would eventually be committed more than justified intervention. Rwanda is not a neighbor to the US. Your analagy fails. You don't want to start precedent where we intervene in another countries affairs based on subjective notions of the severity of atrocities. As President of course I would be harshly condemning the actions of the Government, but ultimately it is up to the people to throw off the shackles of oppression. If they wish to do so; which most would, then I am not opposed in sending aid in the form of monetary and material goods, however never sending military forces. We threw off the tyranny of our oppressors with limited help until the very end from the French. I would do no more no less for any other peoples. It sets too dangerous a precedent. It's a small world. Everyone is everyones neighbour. I agree that you cannot easily quantify how much is too much when it comes to atrocities. That said, when you're in 7 figures it's not so difficult. You need a certain degree of prosperity before you can throw off the shackles of oppression. The Irish didn't rebel during the potato famine. It was after 30 good years of population growth and stability that the independence movement recovered. Your idea of the American War of Independence is laughably wrong. There was no great ideological conflict, just a few shortsighted British ministers. Within a generation the British Government was freely giving away the concessions you originally asked for. It is not laughably wrong. The Founders were a minority movement that grew as the war progressed. They sacrificed their honor, wealth, and lives for the cause of freedom and liberty. Many died, most lost their fortunes. It took far more than a Generation. 1776 was the Declaration of Independence, shortly after the Revolutionary War started. 36 years later (Which is more than a generation), the War of 1812 occurred. Britain still had no aspirations of letting America become independant. They only ceded because it was not economically viable for them; they would lose more than what they gained no matter. It wasn't like Britain had suddenly had an ideological change of heart and suddenly started to become a benevolent tyranny; there is no such thing. America and Britain were so far apart ideologically then and now (well, perhaps not so much now because we are both socialist. Both Governments spend 45%+ of GDP in the Government sector.) However, we have a tradition and memory here in America of what liberty is, what it means, and what sacrifice and blood means in regards to Liberty and Freedom, which Britain does not. We can look on our past for the future and rewrite the course we are currently on. So, no, my view is in line with historical evidence. PS I'm not sure you know this, but before the Declaration, British soldiers were allowed by law to write their own search warrants, allowed to confiscate property and force people into giving them haven, and between the Stamp Act and other tyrannous intrusions was the major driving force of the Declaration. I find it odd that you say that you're the country with a history understanding what it means to sacrifice blood for liberty. To a subject of the country which destroyed itself as a world power in the name of democracy and an (at the time) unwinnable war against three of the most powerful countries in the world. There is more to liberty than simply doing what is best for you. There is more to sacrifice than dying in your own best interests. What should the British people care of the fall of Poland? Although you are right that the revolution was always a minority movement, led by the rich.
The movement started out as a minority. It grew to become the large majority of colonists. The atrocities committed by the British in the War were untold. It turned most of the population against the British and when the population saw what the Founders were fighting for, its principles, convictions, etc. they rallied behind the Revolution. Money matters not. I'm not sure how your addendum of "led by the rich" means anything?
|
Canada2492 Posts
Yes but philosophy and political opinion can go up your butt if people are not getting critical medicine and surgeries because they cannot afford them. Also the economic boom during the government not interfering do not necessarily correlate with each other.
Also you did not address this part of my post:
"The current healthcare system is not efficient and the people are not receiving equal treatment in the medical respect. Of course in a capitalist society the richer people get better treatment, however, in the case of medical attention it's obviously necessary to "bend" a rule and have some government intervention in order for people to have their needs met."
|
On August 19 2009 13:27 ShaperofDreams wrote:
Yes but philosophy and political opinion can go up your butt if people are not getting critical medicine and surgeries because they cannot afford them. Also the economic boom during the government not interfering do not necessarily correlate with each other.
Also you did not address this part of my post:
"The current healthcare system is not efficient and the people are not receiving equal treatment in the medical respect. Of course in a capitalist society the richer people get better treatment, however, in the case of medical attention it's obviously necessary to "bend" a rule and have some government intervention in order for people to have their needs met."
I did too address it, giving fundamental suggestions that are inline with the Constitution and its principles that it evokes. Principles and philosophy means everything. Your advocating the dereliction of them was the same thing that gave rise to every human atrocity committed in the 20th century.
The current system is an amalgamation of Government dictating and forcing artificial market demands. The market can never co-exist peacefully under such duress. This is the underlying principle cause of the current mess. The time between 1870 and 1900 clearly illustrate the efficacy of the market. As soon as Government stepped in prices rose, inflation increased, and competition was stifled. That is direct correlation. It can't become any clearer a picture. Once the banking system was centralized that sealed the fate.
I bet you don't know this, because it isn't taught in orthodox government institutions. Grover Cleveland was perhaps behind Jefferson the greatest American President that stood in cohesiveness with the Constitution. He vetoed every bill that came to him that did not have a founding in the Constitution and its enumerated powers. Consequently, his tenure was doing this tremendous time of growth in America. Banking was more or less de-centralized with regional banks growing and competing with the larger banks; which went to Congress and lobbied for centralization to destroy competition which ultimately occurred in the early 1900s. Do not trust the orthodox views in Government ran educational institutions. The amount of history they omit to try and paint a different picture is astonishing. For instance, do you ever get taught about Nullification and the Kentucky and Virginia resolution in school? OF COURSE NOT! Why do you think that is?
|
Canada2492 Posts
If you put the constitution above human rights you are crazy.
People should be able to afford medical care. Prices have inflated to a completely unreasonable level. If somehow food went up in price to compare to medical treatment would you let a bunch of people starve?
It is the governments job to intervene when something in society is unreasonable and inefficient (aka, govern)
You say abandoning politics and philosophy caused every human atrocity in the 20th century?
r u for rela?
If people looked at human rights instead of politics and philosophy in the 20th century the world would be a better place.
|
On August 19 2009 13:40 ShaperofDreams wrote:
If you put the constitution above human rights you are crazy.
People should be able to afford medical care. Prices have inflated to a completely unreasonable level. If somehow food went up in price to compare to medical treatment would you let a bunch of people starve?
It is the governments job to intervene when something in society is unreasonable and inefficient (aka, govern)
You say abandoning politics and philosophy caused every human atrocity in the 20th century?
r u for rela?
If people looked at human rights instead of politics and philosophy in the 20th century the world would be a better place.
Perhaps you should not be so emotional.
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
|
Canada2492 Posts
On August 19 2009 13:42 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 13:40 ShaperofDreams wrote:
If you put the constitution above human rights you are crazy.
People should be able to afford medical care. Prices have inflated to a completely unreasonable level. If somehow food went up in price to compare to medical treatment would you let a bunch of people starve?
It is the governments job to intervene when something in society is unreasonable and inefficient (aka, govern)
You say abandoning politics and philosophy caused every human atrocity in the 20th century?
r u for rela?
If people looked at human rights instead of politics and philosophy in the 20th century the world would be a better place. Perhaps you should not be so emotional. "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
What is that random quote?
Times change.
Can you please point out where I was "too emotional"?
Also don't randomly regurgitate and copy paste some guys opinion because "He's always right".
|
On August 19 2009 13:46 ShaperofDreams wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 13:42 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 13:40 ShaperofDreams wrote:
If you put the constitution above human rights you are crazy.
People should be able to afford medical care. Prices have inflated to a completely unreasonable level. If somehow food went up in price to compare to medical treatment would you let a bunch of people starve?
It is the governments job to intervene when something in society is unreasonable and inefficient (aka, govern)
You say abandoning politics and philosophy caused every human atrocity in the 20th century?
r u for rela?
If people looked at human rights instead of politics and philosophy in the 20th century the world would be a better place. Perhaps you should not be so emotional. "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood." What is that random quote? Times change. Can you please point out where I was "too emotional"? Also don't randomly regurgitate and copy paste some guys opinion because "He's always right".
The efficacy of greater Government control and involvement has been by history nullified, yet the elite continue to distort the truth. Why is it that the population always believes what the politicians say when whatever the politicians says is always in his best interest, not the other way around. In a time in which American political corruption is at an all-time high, there are still people who put there full trust and faith in this institution rather than themselves. It is quite astonishing.
The quote perfectly sums up my view on the situation hence my usage.
|
Canada2492 Posts
On August 19 2009 13:51 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 13:46 ShaperofDreams wrote:On August 19 2009 13:42 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 13:40 ShaperofDreams wrote:
If you put the constitution above human rights you are crazy.
People should be able to afford medical care. Prices have inflated to a completely unreasonable level. If somehow food went up in price to compare to medical treatment would you let a bunch of people starve?
It is the governments job to intervene when something in society is unreasonable and inefficient (aka, govern)
You say abandoning politics and philosophy caused every human atrocity in the 20th century?
r u for rela?
If people looked at human rights instead of politics and philosophy in the 20th century the world would be a better place. Perhaps you should not be so emotional. "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood." What is that random quote? Times change. Can you please point out where I was "too emotional"? Also don't randomly regurgitate and copy paste some guys opinion because "He's always right". The efficacy of greater Government control and involvement has been by history nullified, yet the elite continue to distort the truth. Why is it that the population always believes what the politicians say when whatever the politicians says is always in his best interest, not the other way around. In a time in which American political corruption is at an all-time high, there are still people who put there full trust and faith in this institution rather than themselves. It is quite astonishing. The quote perfectly sums up my view on the situation hence my usage.
...says the guy who argues that non-intervention is in the constitution. Created at a time when nobody wanted or needed much intervention.
A politicians best interest is to stay in power, In a democracy, a politician stays in power because people vote for him, people vote for him because he makes good decisions. Perhaps there are other ways to stay in power but no matter how corrupt a society is making the right decision is always a strong move.
Do you realize how hypocritical you sound right now?
If government is so corrupt why do you refuse to let them provide healthcare but trust them with a war in another country and about half of your money?
edit: so I'm about done with this thread I don't have time to sit here arguing with someone who I know won't change. Besides I don't think too many people will take the debate to heart.
|
On August 19 2009 13:46 ShaperofDreams wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 13:42 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 13:40 ShaperofDreams wrote:
If you put the constitution above human rights you are crazy.
People should be able to afford medical care. Prices have inflated to a completely unreasonable level. If somehow food went up in price to compare to medical treatment would you let a bunch of people starve?
It is the governments job to intervene when something in society is unreasonable and inefficient (aka, govern)
You say abandoning politics and philosophy caused every human atrocity in the 20th century?
r u for rela?
If people looked at human rights instead of politics and philosophy in the 20th century the world would be a better place. Perhaps you should not be so emotional. "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood." What is that random quote? Times change. Can you please point out where I was "too emotional"? Also don't randomly regurgitate and copy paste some guys opinion because "He's always right".
You gotta realize that you're not as well informed on this topic as some of the others posting currently in this thread. Some of your posts have been semi-insulting to people who are better informed and who are being patient with you. You should just try to educate yourself here and avoid being inflammatory. Your one line retorts have not only been missing the point of what they're meant to address, they've been really agitating for other readers.
Everything you're saying is a gross oversimplification. You should try to develop a stronger background for the opinions you're so fervently espousing. You should, for instance, concern yourself with why prices for medical care are what they are (economics), whether there are methods other than government intervention which may be better suited to solve some of the problems you see (economics), and whether human rights may take a back seat to other issues in the philosophies of others (philosophy)
|
Canada2492 Posts
Also my point is proven by current examples of countries with plenty of success in healthcare and America's super-fail at healthcare.
edit: I'll admit that yes i am an idealist.
and my opinion is that human rights shouldn't take a backseat to philosophy. You are right failsafe.
|
On August 19 2009 10:20 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I read both kwark's arguments and the link which savio provided. The fatal shortcoming I find in both, and perhaps I earlier alluded to it, is their dependence on (low-variate) quantitative analysis to represent actual conditions. I haven't accessed nearly enough medical services across enough countries to make such sweeping international comparisons (and I suspect I am not the least experienced among you in such matters.) Of course the inexperienced fall back on numbers, but just reading through the link savio provided, it must occur to everyone the highly theoretical basis on which all these arguments are founded. GDP is supposed to represent real "wealth." Good health care is equated with life expectancy. We are mobilizing language in the process with such weird neologisms as "preventive healthcare."
I find all such arguments unconvincing without some first-hand anecdotes of how the system actually works.
That last part was sarcasm right?
|
On August 19 2009 11:35 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 16:24 Kwark wrote:
The difference between car insurance and health insurance though is that if you don't have car insurance and get into a huge crash the Government isn't obliged to spend however much it takes to buy you a new car. They'll say you fucked up, walk. Such an approach regarding health is less likely in these times and thus it makes much more sense to perform free maintainance on all cars, regardless of whether they're insured. The cost of checking the tread on someones tyres and then replacing them if needed is less than the cost of repairing a smashed up car after the crash. Car insurance isn't to pay for yourself, it's to pay for the other person (if you are at fault). Health insurance is for yourself. If you don't have a big screen t.v. I guess you don't get to watch that football game. That sucks. If you don't buy food, you don't get to eat. If you don't buy healthcare, you get to walk into an emergency room and they can't deny you treatment (sounds similar to universal healthcare). If things that are for yourself are a "right" then the government should feed us, cloth us, choose our marriages, our car, our job, our education... which is absolutely retarded. Car insurance != health insurance.
Its true that required car insurance is for the other car/people while health insurance is for yourself but that does not disqualify the analogy.
Liability car insurance is purchased because it is required. If health insurance was required, it would always be purchased. But if we are going to require a purchase, we need to deregulate the health insurance industry for the most part and only require emergency service coverage, then let people choose the plans that are individually best for them.
|
On August 19 2009 11:39 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 11:35 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 18 2009 16:24 Kwark wrote:
The difference between car insurance and health insurance though is that if you don't have car insurance and get into a huge crash the Government isn't obliged to spend however much it takes to buy you a new car. They'll say you fucked up, walk. Such an approach regarding health is less likely in these times and thus it makes much more sense to perform free maintainance on all cars, regardless of whether they're insured. The cost of checking the tread on someones tyres and then replacing them if needed is less than the cost of repairing a smashed up car after the crash. Car insurance isn't to pay for yourself, it's to pay for the other person (if you are at fault). Health insurance is for yourself. If you don't have a big screen t.v. I guess you don't get to watch that football game. That sucks. If you don't buy food, you don't get to eat. If you don't buy healthcare, you get to walk into an emergency room and they can't deny you treatment (sounds similar to universal healthcare). If things that are for yourself are a "right" then the government should feed us, cloth us, choose our marriages, our car, our job, our education... which is absolutely retarded. Car insurance != health insurance. That they aren't the same thing was kinda my point. Savio was saying car insurance works therefore there's no reason health insurance shouldn't. I was pointing out that there will always be an obligation to provide critical care in the health insurance market and therefore the market has a 3rd party waving a blank cheque. That changes the economics of it.
No, because critical care is what would be required anyway of 100% of people in the US, so that problem would be solved.
So your reservation is not a valid one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
