Government Deregulation

[Gipper]

Well then explain to this ignorant lefty pal how you define "the law", because if the law is that everyone has to chip in to a pool of money that will be used to help anyone who has medical needs, then I expect my police force to prosecute anyone refusing to abide by this law. No one ever asked me if I agreed with the concept of a speed limit, or a thousand other rules that you have to abide by if you live in this country. Yet I am forced to abide by them every day for no other reason than the fact that there are cops out there who will FORCE me to do so one way or another. As far as I understand it, if our leaders, whom we freely elected, choose to pass universal health care, then that becomes law, and, as you so eloquently pointed out, anyone who is against that is against the law and must suffer the consequences.

Yes my dear friend the law is the law. But your effort to tie someone who breaks the law by driving over the speed limit to someone who opposes confiscation of their property to fuel the welfare state, only indicates your inability to think. I have not broken the law by merely EXISTING and opposing the welfare state. I pay my taxes so that I do not go to jail. However it is immoral of the state to threaten me with jail time (FORCE) if I do not support others. Why should I have to support you? Uncle says I have to or else they will use force on me. This is clearly immoral.

 

[GenSeneca]

Okay, great, finally a concrete response. Now I can start to understand what you're trying to say. So you are against most of our military actions over the past 200 years, which (this is a slight tangent, but) would mean to me that you're also in favor of reducing our military budget by a sizable amount since we wouldn't need such a big army if we weren't going around starting wars all over the place. Am I right in this assumption?

The right of our military to use force - at all - comes from our Individual Right of Self Defense. There is no "right" to use force offensively, to initiate the use of force. So yes, our military should be used only for defense, only against those who initiated the use of force against us, and only to the extent necessary to end the attackers use of force.

Regardless, you didn't answer part 2- logically, you must also be against having a police force, or, at least, you can only be in favor of a police force that exists merely to protect people from being attacked- in other words, a self-defensive police force, as it were. They should have no power to enforce laws of any kind. Right?

Same as above... The use of force by police should only be used to stop those who have initiated the use of force.

And the same applies to every single individual, equally, and without exception.

 

[dogtowner]

Yes my dear friend the law is the law. But your effort to tie someone who breaks the law by driving over the speed limit to someone who opposes confiscation of their property to fuel the welfare state, only indicates your inability to think. I have not broken the law by merely EXISTING and opposing the welfare state. I pay my taxes so that I do not go to jail. However it is immoral of the state to threaten me with jail time (FORCE) if I do not support others. Why should I have to support you? Uncle says I have to or else they will use force on me. This is clearly immoral.

the contract between the people and the government (the Constitution) clearly calls for taxes and also clearly for what. now if you want to argue that the government is not meeting it's side of the contract you have standing but if the contract is unacceptable to you then you are not prevented from seeking greener pastures.

 

[GenSeneca]

But your effort to tie someone who breaks the law by driving over the speed limit to someone who opposes confiscation of their property to fuel the welfare state, only indicates your inability to think.

Sorry Gip but I have to agree with Bobby on this one... Laws against speeding are superfluous and speeding, by itself, is not an example of initiating the use of force against others.

I do agree with you that being forced to support the welfare state is immoral but any law, mandate, or ban that imposes the will of others onto yourself is immoral.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Sorry Gip but I have to agree with Bobby on this one... Laws against speeding are superfluous and speeding, by itself, is not an example of initiating the use of force against others.

I do agree with you that being forced to support the welfare state is immoral but any law, mandate, or ban that imposes the will of others onto yourself is immoral.

Okay, as I am coming to understand you, you are actually against any use of initiated force, regardless of who is initiating it. Which, okay, is not exactly a conventional opinion but I have no problem with it as long as you are consistent with that view across the board. Yes, if you genuinely believe what you are saying, then of course the government has no right to make you pay for health care. But, of course, it has no right to do anything. It can merely suggest what you should do, and then it is up to you and I to do so (or not do so.) Which, believe it or not, I am actually in favor of trying. I don't believe it is the ONLY way one can live or that it is some kind of mandate from god to live this way, but it's definitely a philosophy I can at least get behind trying. It's called Anarchy, actually, and it probably will never work because human beings are so weak and flawed in their thoughts and actions, not to mention infinitely diverse in their opinions, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea, to leave it up to each individual to figure out how they should live.

But I'd like to point out that if we go that route, that also disqualifies capitalism, or any ism, from existing. The minute you start making laws, you're also having to back those laws up with force- otherwise, no one will follow them (some might, some might not, as they all see fit.) And if you're going to back up those laws with force, we're back to the moral dilemma you've brought up. So socialism, like capitalism, like any ism, requires force to function because it is imposing a set of rules you want everyone to play by.

Are we still on the same page?

 

[cashmcall]

Yes my dear friend the law is the law. But your effort to tie someone who breaks the law by driving over the speed limit to someone who opposes confiscation of their property to fuel the welfare state, only indicates your inability to think. I have not broken the law by merely EXISTING and opposing the welfare state. I pay my taxes so that I do not go to jail. However it is immoral of the state to threaten me with jail time (FORCE) if I do not support others. Why should I have to support you? Uncle says I have to or else they will use force on me. This is clearly immoral.

Gipper, you have a lot of gut's buddy..I could not come up with an answer for that one..because there are some laws I agree with..great response and it is clearly immoral..

 

[cashmcall]

Sorry Gip but I have to agree with Bobby on this one... Laws against speeding are superfluous and speeding, by itself, is not an example of initiating the use of force against others.

I do agree with you that being forced to support the welfare state is immoral but any law, mandate, or ban that imposes the will of others onto yourself is immoral.

What if he was speeding and the roads were ice with kids playing every where...?But are they morally equivalent?

 

[Gipper]

Okay, as I am coming to understand you, you are actually against any use of initiated force, regardless of who is initiating it. Which, okay, is not exactly a conventional opinion but I have no problem with it as long as you are consistent with that view across the board. Yes, if you genuinely believe what you are saying, then of course the government has no right to make you pay for health care. But, of course, it has no right to do anything. It can merely suggest what you should do, and then it is up to you and I to do so (or not do so.) Which, believe it or not, I am actually in favor of trying. I don't believe it is the ONLY way one can live or that it is some kind of mandate from god to live this way, but it's definitely a philosophy I can at least get behind trying. It's called Anarchy, actually, and it probably will never work because human beings are so weak and flawed in their thoughts and actions, not to mention infinitely diverse in their opinions, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea, to leave it up to each individual to figure out how they should live.

But I'd like to point out that if we go that route, that also disqualifies capitalism, or any ism, from existing. The minute you start making laws, you're also having to back those laws up with force- otherwise, no one will follow them (some might, some might not, as they all see fit.) And if you're going to back up those laws with force, we're back to the moral dilemma you've brought up. So socialism, like capitalism, like any ism, requires force to function because it is imposing a set of rules you want everyone to play by.

Are we still on the same page?

I am not an anarchist. Laws are essential for a civil society to exist and function. I have no problem with speed limits when used properly. A speed limit is not taking my property by force, just because I made an income....as does the government to feed the welfare state. Yes speeding by itself is not causing harm, however controlling speeding is in the interest of a civil society.

Comparing speed limit laws to funding a huge omnipresent welfare state is comparing apples and oranges. It is not possible for me to cause harm by merely existing and making an income. Yet the government demands I support the welfare state by confiscating my property and if I refuse, I go to jail.

In America today, we have a huge central government imposing all sorts of laws and rules. It is out of control. Our system is designed to drastically limit the power of the central government for good reason. The states and local governments were empowered to make laws the citizenry desired. Keeping law making on the state and local level allowed citizens more input, access, and control.

Agreed...capitalism can't exist in anarchy.

 

[Gipper]

the contract between the people and the government (the Constitution) clearly calls for taxes and also clearly for what. now if you want to argue that the government is not meeting it's side of the contract you have standing but if the contract is unacceptable to you then you are not prevented from seeking greener pastures.

I do not have a problem with paying taxes for essential services. But should I have to pay taxes to support someone else or face prosecution and imprisonment?

The contract between the government and the people (the Constitution) is no longer being honored by the political class and the elites. They voided the contract long ago.

And yes I am looking for greener pastures.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

I do not have a problem with paying taxes for essential services. But should I have to pay taxes to support someone else or face prosecution and imprisonment?

The question isn't about what your subjective tastes happen to be; it's a hard-edged, moral question that was brought up. The argument against universal health care is a hollow one set up by insurance companies appealing to an ideological principle that doesn't exist. If it is wrong to "force" people into a universal health care system, it is wrong to force people to do anything. Driving faster than 55 mph is not immoral. It's not even dangerous- yet, according to the law, if you do it you are a law breaker and deserve being curtailed with force. If you are not an anarchist and you believe in laws and the enforcement of those laws, then you have no moral grounds to criticize a health care system that would benefit everyone. You might not like it, you might not vote for it, but to fool yourself into believing it's some kind of moral code you are following is hypocritical. You simply don't want to spend the cash on other people's health needs. But, as is the case in a democracy, if it were ever voted in, you would have to spend the cash and no amount of whining would give you any more of a moral leg to stand on. I don't like the fact that a chunk of my taxes go to support our bloated military, but that's how it is right now. Morally speaking, using our money to take care of the sick is a hell of a lot more moral than using it to kill people- yet I don't hear any Tea Party folks protesting the military.

But don't worry, the truth is we're not going to get universal health care because the rich and powerful interests that control washington don't want it- it would mean a huge profit loss for them, and that's not happening. Which is the irony in all this- they've got you guys so wound up about the threat of socialism that you don't even realize you're playing right into their hands. Thanks to a nonsensical argument about morals, they've managed to convince half the country to support them in their daily plunder of our wealth as they find new ways to deny needy folks the health care they've been paying for. You guys are so afraid of invisible commies that you willingly walk right into their traps.

 

[cashmcall]

The question isn't about what your subjective tastes happen to be; it's a hard-edged, moral question that was brought up. The argument against universal health care is a hollow one set up by insurance companies appealing to an ideological principle that doesn't exist. If it is wrong to "force" people into a universal health care system, it is wrong to force people to do anything. Driving faster than 55 mph is not immoral. It's not even dangerous- yet, according to the law, if you do it you are a law breaker and deserve being curtailed with force. If you are not an anarchist and you believe in laws and the enforcement of those laws, then you have no moral grounds to criticize a health care system that would benefit everyone. You might not like it, you might not vote for it, but to fool yourself into believing it's some kind of moral code you are following is hypocritical. You simply don't want to spend the cash on other people's health needs. But, as is the case in a democracy, if it were ever voted in, you would have to spend the cash and no amount of whining would give you any more of a moral leg to stand on. I don't like the fact that a chunk of my taxes go to support our bloated military, but that's how it is right now. Morally speaking, using our money to take care of the sick is a hell of a lot more moral than using it to kill people- yet I don't hear any Tea Party folks protesting the military.

But don't worry, the truth is we're not going to get universal health care because the rich and powerful interests that control washington don't want it- it would mean a huge profit loss for them, and that's not happening. Which is the irony in all this- they've got you guys so wound up about the threat of socialism that you don't even realize you're playing right into their hands. Thanks to a nonsensical argument about morals, they've managed to convince half the country to support them in their daily plunder of our wealth as they find new ways to deny needy folks the health care they've been paying for. You guys are so afraid of invisible commies that you willingly walk right into their traps.

Gipp does not have to support it..He could choose to take this route.. In 2014, the first year that the tax will be collected, the tax is $95. It will increase to $325 or 2 percent of your income in 2015. In 2016, it will increase to its highest amount of $695 or 2.5 percent of your income. Even at its highest point, the tax is cheaper than health care in almost all cases.This is going to get out of hand...And that fact is scaring many of the people that designed and are in the process of implementing this fatally flawed system..

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Gipp does not have to support it..He could choose to take this route.. In 2014, the first year that the tax will be collected, the tax is $95. It will increase to $325 or 2 percent of your income in 2015. In 2016, it will increase to its highest amount of $695 or 2.5 percent of your income. Even at its highest point, the tax is cheaper than health care in almost all cases.This is going to get out of hand...And that fact is scaring many of the people that designed and are in the process of implementing this fatally flawed system..

I have no idea what you're talking about. Let's get back to the moral issue at hand that was asked of me and which I just answered. What you just said has nothing to do with anything we've been discussing... or anything at all, as far as I can figure.

 

[cashmcall]

Morally speaking, using our money to take care of the sick is a hell of a lot more moral than using it to kill people- yet I don't hear any Tea Party folks protesting the military. There you go again "morally equivalent"..The sick in this country are taken care of, At a high cost to those of us who have insurance...But with-out our great Military presense there would be no America or at least not the one we enjoy today...BUT I belive the military can and should be cut..

 

[cashmcall]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Let's get back to the moral issue at hand that was asked of me and which I just answered. What you just said has nothing to do with anything we've been discussing... or anything at all, as far as I can figure.

You said . You simply don't want to spend the cash on other people's health needs..My point is as it stands now he won't have to..You said...Morally speaking, using our money to take care of the sick is a hell of a lot more moral than using it to kill people- yet I don't hear any Tea Party folks protesting the military.I said ...BUT I belive the military can and should be cut..

 

[Gipper]

The question isn't about what your subjective tastes happen to be; it's a hard-edged, moral question that was brought up. The argument against universal health care is a hollow one set up by insurance companies appealing to an ideological principle that doesn't exist. If it is wrong to "force" people into a universal health care system, it is wrong to force people to do anything. Driving faster than 55 mph is not immoral. It's not even dangerous- yet, according to the law, if you do it you are a law breaker and deserve being curtailed with force. If you are not an anarchist and you believe in laws and the enforcement of those laws, then you have no moral grounds to criticize a health care system that would benefit everyone. You might not like it, you might not vote for it, but to fool yourself into believing it's some kind of moral code you are following is hypocritical. You simply don't want to spend the cash on other people's health needs. But, as is the case in a democracy, if it were ever voted in, you would have to spend the cash and no amount of whining would give you any more of a moral leg to stand on. I don't like the fact that a chunk of my taxes go to support our bloated military, but that's how it is right now. Morally speaking, using our money to take care of the sick is a hell of a lot more moral than using it to kill people- yet I don't hear any Tea Party folks protesting the military.

But don't worry, the truth is we're not going to get universal health care because the rich and powerful interests that control washington don't want it- it would mean a huge profit loss for them, and that's not happening. Which is the irony in all this- they've got you guys so wound up about the threat of socialism that you don't even realize you're playing right into their hands. Thanks to a nonsensical argument about morals, they've managed to convince half the country to support them in their daily plunder of our wealth as they find new ways to deny needy folks the health care they've been paying for. You guys are so afraid of invisible commies that you willingly walk right into their traps.

There are numerous fallacies in your post.

First, socialized medicine will benefit only the state. It benefits no one else. Second, we will get universal hc (so don't despair my leftist friend) because the socialists and progressives who run our political system have it all set up to occur. They have irreparably broken our current HC system, in a deceitful plan to impose their will, that the only solution will be universal hc. How any American can think for one minute, that allowing the state to control our HC will be an improvement, is beyond me. Thirdly, the insurers, doctors, and hospitals will ALL go along with the effort or face the wrath of the all consuming all knowing state....just as was done with Obamacare.

The daily plunder of OUR wealth you say....what in the world are you talking about? I suspect you mean the wealthy elites have stolen your wealth and you want back. What wealth have you generated that the elites taken from you? And can you be specific on who it is that is denying hc to folks who paid for it?

Yes I do not think it my job to provide for your healthcare. Sorry to be so cold hearted.