Political Discussion

Max Sterling said:
No offense taken!

I don't deny my views are often on the optimistic, best case scenario, side of things. However, I think that if we're not trying to attain these things, if we just give up on the concept that we can have an non-corrupt government who actually makes an effort to represent the people, then we're never going to make anything better. Just accepting that everything will always be bad stunts progress.

I don't have the sort of faith in humanity you do that people would just do what's right or even necessary without encouragement. Whether that encouragement takes the form of regulations and standards of practice, or tangible consequences for your actions.

And you're right, we all have very different opinions on how things should be done, so it's nigh impossible to have everyone represented. But we can work in majorities based on majority needs.
Click to expand...
My position is that government can’t be reformed or made non-corrupt. It’s an impossibility based upon my acceptance of the fallen nature of man and the reality that all man made structures and systems will reflect that brokenness. True progress is made by good folks working within their sphere of influence and making the world around them better. Help your neighbor. Be involved in meeting their needs. That’s how things improve. Voting to empower folks to use violence to effect an outcome you like doesn’t get there.
 
Chucktshoes said:
Joe is correct in his assessment of my views. I am opposed to government control of most everything based on principle. Also, government attracts the worst of the worst people along with the well meaning. The terrible people are just way more competent and accumulating power and influence.





Time to get spicy. I have no issue with folks denying service to anyone for any reason. Plus, I’d rather know who the raging bigots are so I can choose not to provide them with my business.


As long as government is in the business of regulating the buying and selling of things, the first things to be bought and sold will be the politicians. The only way to get rid of the corrupting influence of big money in government is to make it so government can’t hand out favors to pick winners and losers.
Click to expand...
What do you think about people who have accumulated power and influence at health insurance companies?
 
Chucktshoes said:
I generally don’t think about them. They aren’t using the threat of violence to steal from me or abrogate my natural, God given rights as a human being.
Click to expand...
Should they be able to charge you 1200% of what you would pay in Canada, the UK or Germany for something like heart surgery? How is that not stealing from you?
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Should they be able to charge you 1200% of what you would pay in Canada, the UK or Germany for something like heart surgery? How is that not stealing from you?
Click to expand...
Healthcare is a service provided by the labor of others. It isn’t a right. Declaring it as such is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are. The providers of any service are free to charge what they wish for their services. Our current healthcare system is setup in such a way that it divorces the consumer of the care from the payer of the care. That creates vast bloat and inefficiencies that inflate the costs of the care as true market competition doesn’t exist. As far as what the costs are in other countries, I don’t live there so it isn’t my concern.
 
Chucktshoes said:
Healthcare is a service provided by the labor of others. It isn’t a right. Declaring it as such is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are. The providers of any service are free to charge what they wish for their services. Our current healthcare system is setup in such a way that it divorces the consumer of the care from the payer of the care. That creates vast bloat and inefficiencies that inflate the costs of the care as true market competition doesn’t exist. As far as what the costs are in other countries, I don’t live there so it isn’t my concern.
Click to expand...

Healthcare is actually a right in manny European countries. And not only are costs much lower, you would owe nothing if you had a heart attack in one of those countries while visiting and required open heart surgery to fixed a clogged artery. It doesn't matter what health insurance plan you have or if you even have health insurance.
 
Chucktshoes said:
Healthcare is a service provided by the labor of others. It isn’t a right. Declaring it as such is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are. The providers of any service are free to charge what they wish for their services. Our current healthcare system is setup in such a way that it divorces the consumer of the care from the payer of the care. That creates vast bloat and inefficiencies that inflate the costs of the care as true market competition doesn’t exist. As far as what the costs are in other countries, I don’t live there so it isn’t my concern.
Click to expand...
It should be a right. Why should someone who is poor have less access to health care than someone who is affluent?
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Healthcare is actually a right in manny European countries. And not only are costs much lower, you would owe nothing if you had a heart attack in one of those countries while visiting and required open heart surgery to fixed a clogged artery. It doesn't matter what health insurance plan you have or if you even have health insurance.
Click to expand...
I understand how the world works in other places. I’m not an ignorant buffoon here. I just reject your worldview as wrong and I maintain that your definition of certain words is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Sonicpharmacist said:
It should be a right. Why should someone who is poor have less access to health care than someone who is affluent?
Click to expand...

Nothing that requires positive action on the part of another person can ever truly be declared a right. If healthcare is a right, then it requires that someone else provide it for you. To say that you have a right to something is to declare an exclusive claim to that thing. The only rights that are actual rights are what is known as a negative rights. They confer no positive obligations on others, they simply require that others not interfere with your exclusive claim.

I have a right to my life, meaning that others are obligated not to kill me. I have a right to my liberty meaning others have an obligation not to prevent me from doing as I please so long as I do not interfere with the rights of others. I have a right to my justly acquired property, meaning that others are obligated not to steal from me. Those are rights. The labor and services of others are not and can only be justly acquired through mutually agreeable terms. (Such as a fee for a service.)
 
Chucktshoes said:
It appears that you’ve got a specific axe to grind. One that I’m not fully aware of or able to suss out. So I’m not really sure what point you’re attempting to make here. Sorry.
Click to expand...
My point is that for people who are faced with serious or even life-threatening health problems, the experience of interacting with our private health system very much approximates the experience of having someone using the threat of violence to steal from them and abrogate their natural, God given rights as a human being.

To be clear: thankfully I have not had that experience personally. Yet.
 
Chucktshoes said:
Nothing that requires positive action on the part of another person can ever truly be declared a right. If healthcare is a right, then it requires that someone else provide it for you. To say that you have a right to something is to declare an exclusive claim to that thing. The only rights that are actual rights are what is known as a negative rights. They confer no positive obligations on others, they simply require that others not interfere with your exclusive claim.

I have a right to my life, meaning that others are obligated not to kill me. I have a right to my liberty meaning others have an obligation not to prevent me from doing as I please so long as I do not interfere with the rights of others. I have a right to my justly acquired property, meaning that others are obligated not to steal from me. Those are rights. The labor and services of others are not and can only be justly acquired through mutually agreeable terms. (Such as a fee for a service.)
Click to expand...
If someone is trying to kill you and a police officer is standing nearby, do you have a right to expect him to intervene?
 
Chucktshoes said:
Nothing that requires positive action on the part of another person can ever truly be declared a right. If healthcare is a right, then it requires that someone else provide it for you. To say that you have a right to something is to declare an exclusive claim to that thing. The only rights that are actual rights are what is known as a negative rights. They confer no positive obligations on others, they simply require that others not interfere with your exclusive claim.

I have a right to my life, meaning that others are obligated not to kill me. I have a right to my liberty meaning others have an obligation not to prevent me from doing as I please so long as I do not interfere with the rights of others. I have a right to my justly acquired property, meaning that others are obligated not to steal from me. Those are rights. The labor and services of others are not and can only be justly acquired through mutually agreeable terms. (Such as a fee for a service.)
Click to expand...
Someone had to make that gun in your photo. Isn't that a "right"? To own a gun?
 
Space Wanderer said:
My point is that for people who are faced with serious or even life-threatening health problems, the experience of interacting with our private health system very much approximates the experience of having someone using the threat of violence to steal from them and abrogate their natural, God given rights as a human being.

To be clear: thankfully I have not had that experience personally. Yet.
Click to expand...
Well, if you feel that you are owed something you are not (even if you may really need it), I can understand one would feel that way. It doesn’t make it so.
 
Space Wanderer said:
If someone is trying to kill you and a police officer is standing nearby, do you have a right to expect him to intervene?
Click to expand...
According to multiple Supreme Court cases, no. They’re not obligated in the least. I would hope they would, but they are under no legal obligation to do so.

Also, I carry a gun and train for that sort of thing. My personal safety is the responsibility of one person and one person alone. Me.
 
Sonicpharmacist said:
Someone had to make that gun in your photo. Isn't that a "right"? To own a gun?
Click to expand...
It is a right to justly acquire and own property free from the interference of others. It is incumbent upon me to acquire that property in mutually agreeable terms between myself and the producer/retailer of said property. In this case it was an exchange made by the medium of fiat currency I earned through the exchange of my labor to others for payment in said fiat currency. It is not the responsibility of anyone to provide that property to me.
 
Chucktshoes said:
According to multiple Supreme Court cases, no. They’re not obligated in the least. I would hope they would, but they are under no legal obligation to do so.

Also, I carry a gun and train for that sort of thing. My personal safety is the responsibility of one person and one person alone. Me.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting to me that we suddenly shifted from your conception of “rights” to the “legal obligations” promulgated by the violent thugs of the US government.
 
Chucktshoes said:
It is a right to justly acquire and own property free from the interference of others. It is incumbent upon me to acquire that property in mutually agreeable terms between myself and the producer/retailer of said property. In this case it was an exchange made by the medium of fiat currency I earned through the exchange of my labor to others for payment in said fiat currency. It is not the responsibility of anyone to provide that property to me.
Click to expand...
And if someone with a bigger gun comes by and takes your gun away, the proper remedy for you is to hope that the state does something about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top