You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
When the government has the authority to seize any assesst it deems valuable and thus a risk, we can wave good-bye to freedom. So we're going to nationalize health care and let the government control our economy. Does this seem absolutely absurd and against the very grain of what made America great to anyone else?
These realities only enforce my desire even more to run for office once I get done with the Army. Someone has to stand up for freedom and individual rights.
It makes me sick as well. There's no such thing as a true conservative in government anymore. Reagan is turning over in his grave. We have republicans wanting the government to control the financial sectors, and we have dems wanting government to control health care and whatever programs they can think of.
This isn't a democracy anymore, and its sad you have to be in the middle east fighting for what we are losing here at home.
Maybe as a fascist state we will now seize Iraqi oilfields and give them a certain percentage of the profits and bring the rest here. Would be a good way to bring down the price of oil while we figure out a way to stop relying on it for our well being.
While the government is seizing companies, they need to take Halliburton as well. The next president will do it.
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
You guys are over-reacting. The U.S. is not turning into a facist state, because we're going to tell some bankers to do their fucking job right, and not break it off in the country over greed.
This is the death of Reaganomics. Which just doesn't work anymore in 2008.
We'll find another way, even if it is a more Democratic liberal idea of how the financial system in this country should be run. Don't overexaggerate.
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
This new idea of government scares the shit out of me. This country is starting to fall apart just like so many more have done before it. Slowly we move away from a free state into one controlled by the government.
National health care- can you imagine how bad that medical treatment would be? Not my idea of a good system.
Who else wants to move?
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
You guys are friggin' scary.
I'm about as capitalist as you can get, but calling national health care a fascist idea is just insanely ridiculous. I also see the terms fascist and socialist being used as if they were one and the same... This sort of indoctrination is just way more extreme than I ever could've imagined.
The impact of national health care upon the economic system is negligible, especially compared to the huge benefits it gives you to your society. Lowering the discrepancy between those who benefit from and those who don't need it only increases welfare. It's not like regular social security where people can abuse the system, you don't choose to be sick. It will not skew your economy towards the lower end, it just removes health as a factor in it.
How the hell can national health care take away freedom? You guys are so far off, it's not even funny anymore.
Trust me: we invented capitalism, we know a thing or two about it. We also have the best health care system in the world and we are one of the biggest proponents of personal freedom in Europe. They are not mutually exclusive.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
wow I am pissed, I wrote a huge reply to this and of course the website crapped out when I hit submit.
Anyway....
No one has the right to health care. A right is something man is able to do without impedment from others in nature. I have the right to free-speech because I can say what I want without assistance from others. I have the right to defense because I am able to defend myself against attackers in nature. Rights are not something granted by a government entity nor are they something that requires the willing or unwilling contribution of others. From someone who claims to have created Capitalism and understands it well, you sure don't understand the concept of the free-market. I'd assume since you understand Capitalism (meaning you read the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith) you would also be familiar with John Locke who also is an inspiration to the US founding fathers. As Locke said, we have the right to life, liberty and property. Forcing a segment of the population (Doctors) to perform a serivce at a pre-determined amount for all that come by is not liberty. You may have the right to live, but you don't have the right to services provided by others.
Since 10% of the population utilized 70% of all medical resources in this nation, I fail to see how providing "free" care for all is advantageous to society. Ecspecially considering that the segment that utilizes most of the resources often contributes little to nothing in terms of the economy and same programs they utilize. I would not be opposed to the government creating an entirely optional program ran not for profit that people could join for their health insurance needs. So long as this program is entirely funded by those who enjoy its benefits and not at the exspense of others. This of course would never happen as demonstrated by the tragedy of the commons. For those not aware or familiar with this tale, it symbolizes the problems of a collective effort when a segment of the organization is able to use more resources than they contribute thus limiting the amount of availability to others.
Socialism and fascism are one in the same regardless of how some would try to imagine or convince us of otherwise. Both fascism and socialism place the needs and desires of the populace at the will of the government or collective and remove individual identiy and ownership. Afterall, the world's most famous Fasist, the Nazi party, identified themselves as a socialist party.
If America does instate a socialist medical program, I hope they go all out and resemble something similar to 1984. Obese and unhealthy people need to be required by law to stay within certain weight ratios and exercise regularly. Afterall, if I'm paying for your care than I should have a say in how you live your life. If the government is responsible for your health care, than that responsibility doesn't stop at the doctor's office. All activity deemed unhealthy needs to be outlawed as to not burden the system. Such policies are already going into affect by banning smoking and trans fat in foods. I say take it a step further and immediately abort all fetuses found to have geneitic defects or problems that would require extra medical care. If society is responsible for the health of the nation, than society should put in laws that ensure that health and ability of equal care to everyone.
Hopefully my above comments outrage people who read them. Hopefully they feel such a system would be a violation of their personal rights and ability to choose what is best for them. Because I feel the same outrage when someone says I should be responsible for their care because they have made decsions that hinder them from gaining their own care.
Need does not necessiate access to service. This is best demonstrated by the Ayn Rand dialogue below:
Ragnar Danneskjold: "But I've chosen a special mission of my own. I'm after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men's minds, we will not have a decent world to live in."
Hank Rearden: "What man?"
Ragnar: "Robin Hood."
Ragnar: ". . . [Robin Hood] is not remembered as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became a symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don't have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures - the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich - whom men have come to regard as the moral idea." ". . . Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive."
The Pirate Ragnar Danneskjöld
From Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged
Health care is currently available to almost all American citizens who want it. The majority of the uninsured are the youth of America who don't feel they need such coverage because they see no reel risk of serious illness or disease. Your typical 25 year old doesn't need to worry about cancer or a heart transplant, so why should they pay for a service they don't need?
Freedom means the ability to make choices on your own without permission from others. Mandating a government plan to force tax payers to pay for the needs of others isn't freedom - it's socialism. I should only have to pay for services that I use; I'm not responsible for the lives of others.
Some of you would do well to read The Cost of Rights and Free to Choose. Specifically if you care about understaning what constitutes a right and what a true free market and freedom is.
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
No one has the right to health care. A right is something man is able to do without impediment from others in nature. I have the right to free-speech because I can say what I want without assistance from others. I have the right to defense because I am able to defend myself against attackers in nature. Rights are not something granted by a government entity nor are they something that requires the willing or unwilling contribution of others.
Obviously, you must realize we disagree on this one, otherwise my previous post would be pretty moot. You're point of view seems to be the complete opposite of that of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically with regards to medicare, article 25 of the declaration reads as follows:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Article 26 is in the same vain, but with regards to education. Eleanor Roosevelt has been quoted as saying this is the modern day Magna Carta, I would agree.
From someone who claims to have created Capitalism and understands it well, you sure don't understand the concept of the free-market. I'd assume since you understand Capitalism (meaning you read the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith) you would also be familiar with John Locke who also is an inspiration to the US founding fathers. As Locke said, we have the right to life, liberty and property.
Well, to put it into context, the modern principle of a stock exchange was invented in the harbours of Bruges & Antwerp in the early 13th century. It's the first documented consolidation of a set of rules for this type of entrepreneurship. Trying to make my reply as concise as possible, I generalized the claim to "inventing capitalism". My motives were solely to indicate that the "old world" knows a thing or two about laissez-faire liberalism and that my input doesn't need to be discarded purely on the merits of me being a European.
Forcing a segment of the population (Doctors) to perform a service at a pre-determined amount for all that come by is not liberty. You may have the right to live, but you don't have the right to services provided by others.
Ideology aside, doctors are amongst the most prosperous of our society, even here in Belgium. They are paid for everything they do. I have Little insight into how the American system is currently organized in detail, but we do have to pay our doctors. However, if the treatment is proven to be necessary, we get reimbursed for 95% of the cost by the government. Obviously perks like a single room, voluntary plastic surgery, diets for other than medicals reasons, etc... are not paid back. This is not Soviet Russia, where doctors are paid the same as gardeners or garbage men. We do give our people incentive to get an education.
Since 10% of the population utilized 70% of all medical resources in this nation, I fail to see how providing "free" care for all is advantageous to society. Especially considering that the segment that utilizes most of the resources often contributes little to nothing in terms of the economy and same programs they utilize. I would not be opposed to the government creating an entirely optional program ran not for profit that people could join for their health insurance needs. So long as this program is entirely funded by those who enjoy its benefits and not at the expense of others. This of course would never happen as demonstrated by the tragedy of the commons. For those not aware or familiar with this tale, it symbolizes the problems of a collective effort when a segment of the organization is able to use more resources than they contribute thus limiting the amount of availability to others.
We seem to agree on the fact that pooling resources is advantageous for all involved, but disagree on the fact that this works best if it's mandatory. Disease can strike anyone. If there is no safety net, disease can and will lead to poverty. Poor people leave a significant footprint on the economy; not only because they adversely impact welfare statistics and thus have a negative impact on the investment climate, but also because they (statistically) are more likely to commit crimes. Therefore, it is in your best interest to shield as many people as possible from poverty. Not at all cost, but by forcing them to contribute to the health care system they might need later on.
Compare it to smoking in public places: you might not need assistance to do it, but it will impact other people. Therefore the law makes sure you don't. It works for the mandatory stuff as well. Society can't afford too many poor people, so the least you can do is shield those who might involuntarily fall into it.
Socialism and fascism are one in the same regardless of how some would try to imagine or convince us of otherwise. Both fascism and socialism place the needs and desires of the populace at the will of the government or collective and remove individual identify and ownership. After all, the world's most famous Fascist, the Nazi party, identified themselves as a socialist party.
Sure, but Al Qaeda calls itself the "Freedom Fighters of the Oppressed", don't let that tarnish the term "freedom".
If America does instate a socialist medical program, I hope they go all out and resemble something similar to 1984. Obese and unhealthy people need to be required by law to stay within certain weight ratios and exercise regularly. After all, if I'm paying for your care than I should have a say in how you live your life. If the government is responsible for your health care, than that responsibility doesn't stop at the doctor's office. All activity deemed unhealthy needs to be outlawed as to not burden the system. Such policies are already going into affect by banning smoking and trans fat in foods. I say take it a step further and immediately abort all fetuses found to have geneitic defects or problems that would require extra medical care. If society is responsible for the health of the nation, than society should put in laws that ensure that health and ability of equal care to everyone.
So why exactly is heroin illegal then? "Honestly, I just do it in my room, I never bother anyone with it." It's not because the line is thin and vague that we should not put in a best effort to draw it. The line might change from time to time, but it needs to exist. Don't be an extremist in your views, it's not just black or white. The balance is not easy, and it will tip over once in a while but as long as you have freedom of speech and a democratic voting system, you will be safe. It's the doublethink that you need to be afraid of, not big brother as such.
Hopefully my above comments outrage people who read them. Hopefully they feel such a system would be a violation of their personal rights and ability to choose what is best for them. Because I feel the same outrage when someone says I should be responsible for their care because they have made decsions that hinder them from gaining their own care.
Need does not necessiate access to service. This is best demonstrated by the Ayn Rand dialogue below:
It's an interesting point of view, but it ignores the fact that a lot of people are indeed not fit to make these decisions for themselves and that their decision will negatively impact your standard of life.
Health care is currently available to almost all American citizens who want it. The majority of the uninsured are the youth of America who don't feel they need such coverage because they see no reel risk of serious illness or disease. Your typical 25 year old doesn't need to worry about cancer or a heart transplant, so why should they pay for a service they don't need?
Freedom means the ability to make choices on your own without permission from others. Mandating a government plan to force tax payers to pay for the needs of others isn't freedom - it's socialism. I should only have to pay for services that I use; I'm not responsible for the lives of others.
Care to tell me how you think that relates to the defense budget and the input of American citizens who oppose some of the missions embarked upon by the American army? Can they opt out of a part of their taxes 'cause they don't want to pay for a service they don't want? Your government makes these decisions for you, because a society will never be unanimous about these things - same should go for health care.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
First off, I couldn't care less about the United Declaration of Human Rights. That is not a document that has any legal bearing in the United States, nor should it.
Furthermore, where do they derive the right to ".... a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."?
Secondly, where do they derive the authority to make such a claim? Just because such an ideal would seem nice and beneficial to a substantial portion of the population doesn't mean it's a right. What you desscribed is a re-distribution of wealth, which of course goes against the very fabric of Capitalism. It certainly goes against the concept of freedom which is where are discussion originated from.
Extremism in the defense of freedom is not a vice. I'm certainly a realist and obviously support some forms of government services, mainly the ones described in the Federalist papers. Although your point is taken. Our disagreement stems from a basic assumption on what one is entitled to.
I fail to see how providing food, shelter and care for the unemployed is a guaruntee. Whatever happened to personal responsibility and living within your means. I should not have to compromise my standard of living to accomodate yours or anyone else's.
You miss my point if you believe I think a substance like heroin should be illegal. On the contrary, I think heroin should be perfectly legal. I also think that people should be accountable for their actions, regardless of intent or state of mind they're in at the time the act is committed. Thus is why I think hate crimes and drunk driving laws are redundant and inane. The act itself is what is of concern, not why or because of why they did it. In this regard, I take a wholy utilitarian approach to actions with respect to the legal system. In morality, I follow a Kantian approach, but I do not desire to legislate morality, so action is more important than intent.
Finally, national defense is something that is required by our constitution. As Lock wrote, we make an agreement with society to provide organized law-enforcement and defense instead of allowing each individual to act as their own agent in these matters. America is not a direct democracy, but rather a representative democracy. So your point as to the current mission of American military forces is invalid. All US citizens tactitly consent to pay into national defense and allow our elected officials to determine when and how our military will be used. If a certain citizen has an issue with how said military is being used, than they need to address their concerns with their elected official in hopes they will vocalize their thoughts.
The government should only exist to defend life, liberty and property rights (ala pursuit of happiness). This doesn't mean that the government provides you with the means to a long life, resources to exercise your liberty (income) or provide you with property and goods so that you may be happy. They simply exist to make sure that others don't impede your ability to exercise these rights (murder, enslavement and theft).
I can cite doctrines all day long from individuals or groups claiming a right to something exists. But until you show me how any right not already realized exists, a document from a non-soveirgn entitiy means nothing to me.
In summation, taking the goods and efforts of others to sustain yourself because of self limitations is not a right. It's theft. And to try to sugarcoat it and wrap it up into some moral ideal is intellectually dishonest. In a utopian world, we'd live in the garden of eden and all desires would be granted. We live in the real world though that has limited resources. Desire and need should never supercede effort or achievement.
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
Whatever happened to personal responsibility and living within your means. I should not have to compromise my standard of living to accomodate yours or anyone else's.
I agree, and therefore everyone who voted for Bush twice & McCain should have their taxes raised to pay for the debt this nation has been put in.
Why should we have to pay??
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
...
Well, at least your not contradicting yourself (too much). You say what you believe and have obviously thought it through for yourself. For that, you have my respect (which you probably don't want or need anyway).
You attack drunk driving laws while at the same time you say the government should only exist to "defend life". Surely you see the duality in that? You didn't respond to my question about the defense budget either? Isn't PaSnow's remark also valid in that regard?
Not trying to corner you or even convince you, I'm genuinely interested in knowing how you rationalize those things.
