Tax on rich for healthcare.

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
A contract social or otherwise, is an agreement. I do not recall agreeing to anything other than not to initiate aggression, is that type of good behavior to be rewarded by a slap in the head by your nanny state and a system that approves of legalized theft? Your morality shifts depending upon who is doing the theft. If I steal directly from you, you do not accept this, yet if government does you hold it up as good and call it a social contract.

Home36rown, you endorse a system based upon a rationalization that good can come from evil. When we deem our selves worthy of knowing what is best for another we open the door to tyranny. All things that enter that door are forever tainted. The source of the worlds problems can usually be traced to people that think minding somebody else' business is a noble cause. Good luck in pursuing good through evil and pretending that government is somehow morally exempt from the golden rule.
Your excusing government from good behavior has lead to war. Do you believe government can force you to support war under your social contract argument ?
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
Well rather than get into a philosophical debate, I will say this: The bottom line is, what are you proposing(voluntary taxation), basically amounts to anarchy...thanks, but no thanks.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Well rather than get into a philosophical debate, I will say this: The bottom line is, what are you proposing(voluntary taxation), basically amounts to anarchy...thanks, but no thanks.
Which is worse, nonviolent anarchy or violent "democracy" ? You can demonize my logic by using the Anarchy boogey man, but the real monster is the
system that says one thing but does another, the one you hold as legitimate, the one you admit relys upon force and extortion.
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
Nonviolent anarchy eh? I'd imagine we'd see a whole hell of a lot more violence with anarchy. We don't live in a perfect world...anarchy would be chaos. I don't subscribe to any axiom so desperately that I would watch America ascend into a wasteland to follow it. I am a pragmatist.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Well rather than get into a philosophical debate, I will say this: The bottom line is, what are you proposing(voluntary taxation), basically amounts to anarchy...thanks, but no thanks.
What, afraid that you don't have a philosophical leg to stand on, as your ideology supports the use of force, coercion and extortion to reach its ends. Since your ideology is the ideology of tyrants like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Palpot. Since your ideology is responsible for over 100+ Million Deaths?

Yeah, I wouldn't want to engage in a philosophical debate either if I shared your ideology. I wouldnt want to have to explain how I can support a philisophy that is responsible for all those deaths at the hands of government either.

Though, your attacks on anarchy fail. Whereas anarchy might be pictured as a state of chaos, the truth is likely to be quite different. The anarchy you picture, no doubt, is that following a revolution, where people are attempting to assert power and rebuild the system of enslavement named government.

The anarchy I picture is a truly voluntary system where everyone is free to do what they will with their property, income and lives free of the undue interference of would be tyrants such as yourself. Who some how believe that they have the moral high ground despite wishing to impose a system of slavery upon their fellow man.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Utopian thinking...like I said, we don't live in a perfect world.
The closest we can come to a perfect world is to allow people the freedom to make their own choices. Some people will make good choices, others will not.
I am not advocating lawlessness, I am saying any law that insists an otherwise peaceful person MUST participate in something is the CAUSE of your dreaded violent anarchy. In my "perfect world" you would be free to pursue that which you value. In your perfect world I would not.

Your reliance upon government to make good choices has lead to what? How do wars happen? Your government is authorizing death RIGHT NOW as we speak. You support this...think. It's all because your beloved government reserves the right to aggress unto themselves.

I say no person or no government has the right to initiate force. Do you agree with that basic statement? If you don't you are what you fear.
 
If Gov ran healthcare is so wonderful, then why are people moving here from the other countries to get our health care?????Was watching on television some of the horros that happen in Canada with their health care. It is pitifull. Can't believe our gov wants to be like that with the American people.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
The problem is that there has not ever been a society in the world where there hasn't been some sort of government or hierarchy. The movie lord of the flies comes to mind. It cannot work with how irrational, unintelligent, and easily spooked we are as a society.

Our country is far from perfect we started off by almost wiping out an entire race of people, burning women at the stake, enslaving another race of people, kicking out people and forcing them out of what we call our borders, ect. So no our government history is not perfect and just. But it is just a reflection of the people that live inside of it.

Go no further than the gun control thread to see what I mean.

Lucky for us though individuals are so insignificant that we mostly get left alone to do whatever we want to do within reason. And due to the greed that is inside almost everyone of us it helps us to continue to increase our way of life.

Anyway:

If Gov ran healthcare is so wonderful, then why are people moving here from the other countries to get our health care?????Was watching on television some of the horros that happen in Canada with their health care. It is pitifull. Can't believe our gov wants to be like that with the American people.
There is bad stories everywhere, but we have just as many (if not more) of those stories here in the states for the people with access to healthcare. And not to mention what happens to all the people without it. But one good thing we do have here in the states is some of the best doctors and best equipment in some of the hospitals anywhere.

But that doesn't mean that any doctor you see is the best, you need to fork out the big bucks to see them and get that kind of care.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
The problem is that there has not ever been a society in the world where there hasn't been some sort of government or hierarchy. The movie lord of the flies comes to mind. It cannot work with how irrational, unintelligent, and easily spooked we are as a society.

Our country is far from perfect we started off by almost wiping out an entire race of people, burning women at the stake, enslaving another race of people, kicking out people and forcing them out of what we call our borders, ect. So no our government history is not perfect and just. But it is just a reflection of the people that live inside of it.

Go no further than the gun control thread to see what I mean.

Lucky for us though individuals are so insignificant that we mostly get left alone to do whatever we want to do within reason. And due to the greed that is inside almost everyone of us it helps us to continue to increase our way of life.

Anyway:



There is bad stories everywhere, but we have just as many (if not more) of those stories here in the states for the people with access to healthcare. And not to mention what happens to all the people without it. But one good thing we do have here in the states is some of the best doctors and best equipment in some of the hospitals anywhere.

But that doesn't mean that any doctor you see is the best, you need to fork out the big bucks to see them and get that kind of care.

You do realize that the reason why we have the best doctors and the best equipment is because of the free market system that we have, no?

The countries with Socialized Medicine are far behind us when it comes to the use of PET Scans, MRI Scans, and the other high tech "optional" procedures that make doctors jobs easier.

The solution is to land on the lawyers, oh wait, they've bribed Obama, err contributed to Obama, and thus will not be attacked for their role in pursuing idiotic lawsuits and demanding outrageous sums of compensation.

The high cost of malpractice lawsuits punishes Surgeons who have done nothing wrong. The proposed solution punishes Entrepreneurs and Businessmen who have done nothing wrong, and enslaves them to the whims of a bureaucracy.

It's a system that reeks of that most immoral of institutions, slavery.

If they are going to be obligated to pay taxes for this plan, then they should have the right to enslave any one at will. Fair play, if we are going to put them in chains then we should put everyone in chains.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
An Ideologue in a Hurry
When the work product is indefensible, deliberation is dangerous.

By Rich Lowry

EDITOR’S NOTE: This column is available exclusively through King Features Syndicate. For permission to reprint or excerpt this copyrighted material, please contact: kfsreprint@hearstsc.com, or phone 800-708-7311, ext 246.

When Barack Obama pilfered Martin Luther King Jr.’s line about the “fierce urgency of now,” he wasn’t kidding. The line has come to define his presidency. His legislative strategy moves in two gears — heedlessly fast and recklessly faster.

As with the stimulus package, Obama’s health-care plan depends on speed. More important than any given provision, more important than any principle, more important than sound legislating is the urgent imperative to Do It Now.

Do it now, before anyone can grasp what exactly it is that Congress is passing. Do it now, before the overpromising and the dishonest justifications can be exposed. Do it now, before Obama’s poll numbers return to Earth and make it impossible to slam through ramshackle government programs concocted on the run. Do it now, because simply growing government is more important than the practicalities of any new program.

The stimulus partly drives the rush on health care. The program was so ill-considered and so festooned with irrelevant liberal priorities as the price of hustling it through Congress that it becomes more of a drag for Obama every day. So health care has to be rushed through before Obama pays the full price for the failure of his previous rush job. Haste — and waste — makes for more haste.

Obama cultivated an image of cool during the campaign. Unrattled. Deliberate. Cerebral to a fault. Who knew he’d be in a panic to remake one-sixth of the economy by the first week of August of his first year in office?

Normally, the larger and more complicated a bill is, the longer Congress takes to consider it. With the stimulus and cap-and-trade, Obama and the Democrats upended this rule of thumb by passing byzantine, 1,000-page bills that no one had the time to read. When the work product is indefensible, deliberation is dangerous.

There’s a touch of the guilty conscience about Obama’s terrible rush. As if he knows he was elected as a moderate-sounding deficit hawk last year, and if he’s going to pass an ambitious left-wing program, he must do it before the opposition builds.

Why else the mad dash? Obama noted in an interview with ABC News the other day that his health program won’t be phased in until 2013. That’s four years from now. The problem that Obama describes of rising health-care costs bankrupting the government is also a long-term issue, one that needn’t be addressed in pell-mell fashion over the next two weeks.

But the longer Obama’s health-care program marinates in the sun, the worse it smells. Obama’s signature line that anyone who likes his current coverage gets to keep it has been shown to be untrue in recent weeks. His rationale of passing a $1 trillion program to reduce costs is undermined every time the Congressional Budget Office analyzes a real Democratic proposal. No wonder Obama wants to close down the debate before his rating on health care — down to 49 percent in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll — drops any farther.

Ramming through legislation without any assurance that it will work doesn’t seem pragmatic or farsighted. But for Obama’s purposes, it is. His goal is nothing short of an ideological reorientation of American government. Putting in place the structures to achieve this change in the power and role of government is more important than how precisely it is accomplished.

The stimulus might not do much to stimulate the economy during the recession, but its massive spending creates a new baseline for all future spending. The cap-and-trade bill might not reduce carbon emissions during the next decade, but it creates a mechanism for exerting government control over a huge swath of the economy. Obamacare might not work as advertised, but it will tip more people into government care and create the predicate for rationing and price controls.

Barack Obama is an ideologue in a hurry. He wants to put American government on a radically different path. And he wants to Do It Now.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTMyM2FmYmIzNGYwNzg3NmU0MjM0ZTI0YzFiNjI2Zjk=#more
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
You do realize that the reason why we have the best doctors and the best equipment is because of the free market system that we have, no?

The countries with Socialized Medicine are far behind us when it comes to the use of PET Scans, MRI Scans, and the other high tech "optional" procedures that make doctors jobs easier.

The solution is to land on the lawyers, oh wait, they've bribed Obama, err contributed to Obama, and thus will not be attacked for their role in pursuing idiotic lawsuits and demanding outrageous sums of compensation.

The high cost of malpractice lawsuits punishes Surgeons who have done nothing wrong. The proposed solution punishes Entrepreneurs and Businessmen who have done nothing wrong, and enslaves them to the whims of a bureaucracy.

It's a system that reeks of that most immoral of institutions, slavery.

If they are going to be obligated to pay taxes for this plan, then they should have the right to enslave any one at will. Fair play, if we are going to put them in chains then we should put everyone in chains.
Kind of like sports, who has the best player doesn't mean they have the best team. We do have some of the best and brightest and best gear in the world here in the u.s., but it doesn't mean every health system is the best. That is why we rank in the 30's in overall health care in the world.

The wealthy get the best care due to the free market. Pure and simple. And no matter how the system is set up, it could be pure socialism and it will still be the case.

And I do find it hilarious that such a free spirit like you want regulation on anyone. No don't regulate who ever you don't want but it is ok to do so on the lawyers? Technically that is the free market too, so why is it ok for one but not the other?
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Kind of like sports, who has the best player doesn't mean they have the best team. We do have some of the best and brightest and best gear in the world here in the u.s., but it doesn't mean every health system is the best. That is why we rank in the 30's in overall health care in the world.

The wealthy get the best care due to the free market. Pure and simple. And no matter how the system is set up, it could be pure socialism and it will still be the case.

And I do find it hilarious that such a free spirit like you want regulation on anyone. No don't regulate who ever you don't want but it is ok to do so on the lawyers? Technically that is the free market too, so why is it ok for one but not the other?
Because the lawyers generate their income through theft, graft, greed and absurdity. Tort lawyers (the type that I am talking about regulating and restricting) do not represent normal citizens. They represent greedy clients, and are in truth not interested in pursuing justice, but in fattening their wallets. Their willingness to take lawsuits with out a fee is not the result of unselfishness, but the result of greed.

Unlike entrepreneurs, businessmen, professionals (including other lawyers) they do not produce a service that is a necessity for the economic well being. They are of the same type of cancerous bloat that government is, and in truth, with out the government and its interference in the markets there would be a minimal need for lawyers.

There would be limited demand for tax lawyers, a limited demand for tort lawyers, and the lawsuits would likely not reach the astronomical sums available under the flawed system that the United States has. The extortion conducted by lawyers is a burden to the economy, much like the extortion conducted by the government.
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
The closest we can come to a perfect world is to allow people the freedom to make their own choices. Some people will make good choices, others will not.
I am not advocating lawlessness, I am saying any law that insists an otherwise peaceful person MUST participate in something is the CAUSE of your dreaded violent anarchy. In my "perfect world" you would be free to pursue that which you value. In your perfect world I would not.

Your reliance upon government to make good choices has lead to what? How do wars happen? Your government is authorizing death RIGHT NOW as we speak. You support this...think. It's all because your beloved government reserves the right to aggress unto themselves.

I say no person or no government has the right to initiate force. Do you agree with that basic statement? If you don't you are what you fear.
Plain and simple...anarchy would not work. The society you imagine is unattainable...pie in the sky dreams, it isn't realistic. Much like communism, it goes against human nature. There will always be a hierarchy of some sort, and you will never be truly free.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Plain and simple...anarchy would not work. The society you imagine is unattainable...pie in the sky dreams, it isn't realistic. Much like communism, it goes against human nature. There will always be a hierarchy of some sort, and you will never be truly free.
Anarchy does not imply the absence of a hierarchy, it implies the absence of the Government, and it's bumbling immature flailing.

It implies the freedom of individuals not to have to worry that the imbecile they elect today may be the Hitler, Stalin or Mao of tomorrow.

It implies the freedom of individuals to not fear that they, or their loved ones, may become another statistic amongst the 100 + Million Deaths that the State (specifically Socialist States) are responsible for.

It implies the freedom of individuals to associate, or not associate, with society on equal terms where everyone is treated with respect, instead of some being treated like serfs for the benefit of those that do not contribute as much to society.

It implies the freedom of individuals to do what they will with their property, and their lives with out having to bow down to onerous regulations that make them slaves in their own homes in direct contradiction to the principles of the United States.

It implies the freedom of individuals to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, a freedom that people like you continuously deny them through your neotenous support of the income tax system.

It implies the voluntary, instead of forced, cooperation amongst all members of society.

Anarchy, unlike Communism, is a purely voluntary system that gives the individual the same rights that they were endowed with by virtue of being human, the rights to life, liberty and property, and the right to defend these rights with force with out having to worry about how a state that consistently claims that it will be their to "protect" them from those that they had to defend themselves from will treat their actions.

It leads to a voluntary organization of society along ties of family and friendship, instead of an involuntary organization of society along the lines of the tyranny of a minority, or the tyranny of a few.

It is ultimately the only just system of organization for any sort of man that desires to stand up on his own two feet.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
It does sound like a beautiful world TBT. One that we should all strive to achieve.

But the people don't follow the statement "It is ultimately the only just system of organization for any sort of man that desires to stand up on his own two feet" and instead decides to work in unison for the betterment of all the society they chose to live within even at the expense of some of their freedoms (if history proves right (which it almost always does)). Their collective hands would bring them much more wealth and everything that goes along with it.

Eventually leaving the 'outsiders' that chose to be out on their own two feet to resent the haves. And even if eventually, the haves decide to help out the outsiders (plumbing, electricity, education, hospitals) they would eventually become part of that society and ultimately forced to live in the confines of it.

I wish that we were in a place that we could start from scratch and do it that way, but the last time a society was able to do that, we killed almost all the natives that lived there first.

We are just a few notches above the animals in the wild with how we tend to react to things. And in the wild the idea of life liberty and property is non-existent. It is a recent human phenomenon that we try to live up to those words.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
It does sound like a beautiful world TBT. One that we should all strive to achieve.

But the people don't follow the statement "It is ultimately the only just system of organization for any sort of man that desires to stand up on his own two feet" and instead decides to work in unison for the betterment of all the society they chose to live within even at the expense of some of their freedoms (if history proves right (which it almost always does)). Their collective hands would bring them much more wealth and everything that goes along with it.

Eventually leaving the 'outsiders' that chose to be out on their own two feet to resent the haves. And even if eventually, the haves decide to help out the outsiders (plumbing, electricity, education, hospitals) they would eventually become part of that society and ultimately forced to live in the confines of it.

I wish that we were in a place that we could start from scratch and do it that way, but the last time a society was able to do that, we killed almost all the natives that lived there first.

We are just a few notches above the animals in the wild with how we tend to react to things. And in the wild the idea of life liberty and property is non-existent. It is a recent human phenomenon that we try to live up to those words.
And how do you explain the FAILURE of the Welfare State to eradicate Poverty despite repeated attempts to do so through raising minimum wage, a strategy which has revealed itself to be a failure, because of the natural tendency for the market to adjust to unnatural attempts to control it by doing exactly what is expected of it.

The push at the wages at the bottom results in a push on all wages, and typically those at the bottom reap the smallest benefits of the State's supposed largesse.

The government needs to stop concerning itself with more than ensuring the rule of reasonable laws and get the hell out of the way of the force of progress that is the economic system.

Besides, it is the policies of the socialists that has lead to a downfall of the US Agricultural Industry as being an industry dominated by small farmers. Policies such as Estate Taxes that broke up the legacies of small farmers that would have been passed on to their children and forced them to sell to corporations. Corporations that have demonstrated their amazing propensity towards corruption through attempting to use their money to influence the policies of this nation.

Of course, such a trend is the natural result of the illogical capping of the size of the House of Representatives at 435. As the number of people per Representative has gone up the real representation accorded to each individual has gone down. The founders never intended for us to be dominated by a wealthy House of Representatives. They intended for that August Body to be comprised of merchants, mechanics, doctors, workers, businessmen and entrepreneurs who wanted to give something back, not lawyers and career bureaucurats/politicians who desired to extend their own power.

Another possibility that would restore the level of representation would be term limits imposed on the House and the Senate to match the caps placed on the presidency.

The political system of the United States needs to be fixed before any attempts are made to influence the course of the nation, because right now the voices of a great many of the citizenry is ignored blatantly by the politicians.
 
Top