Capitalist Pig
Well-Known Member
How can something be a right if it must be provided by another person? Liberals consistently fail to see the difference between rights, and needs.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Obamacare: Eugenics
- Thread starter GenSeneca
- Start date
How can something be a right if it must be provided by another person? Liberals consistently fail to see the difference between rights, and needs.
Werbung:
Capitalist Pig
Well-Known Member
Nice dodge.
Capitalist Pig
Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting that an innocent unborn child is no different than a murderer convicted by a jury of his peers?
For the record, nobody is in favor of war. It is sometimes however necessary. The allies were not in favor of war prior to world war 2. They were in fact so in favor of peace that any injustice was tolerable to avoid war. Unfortunately if that is the position of all free people, then no people on earth would ever be free.
TVoffBrainOn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2007
- Messages
- 313
yes, utilizing "what ifs" is clearly a liberal SOP. the conservative side should try it..
"What if we invade and don't have an exit strategy?"
"What if we deregulate and markets don't operate in best interests?"
"What if we cux taxes so massively, and it doesn't trickle down?"
Notice, that the theoretical questions i posed to GenSen are ignored in place of generic talking points for ideologies that are incapable of debate.
Im not damning any facts or ignoring any truth. A zygote is cellular, it has human DNA. Whether that makes it a person with individual rights is clearly a debatable issue to anyone who doesn't have an ideological stake in the debate. How giving IT those rights will in fact impose on the rights of the mother is a very important issue that deserves to be equally debated.
If a zygote with rights is killed because a mother drank too much and fell down the stairs, then the mother must be charged with manslaughter.
Sihouette
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,635
Hey C. Pig, why should I be required to pay taxes for you to drive on our roads? We don't need paved roads. I have a 4 x 4 and can get around just fine on dirt tracks. Why do I need to subsidize your lifestyle of having to have fancy paved roads to drive on? Yet that's where my taxes go..
Do we really NEED healthcare for all? It's not like an epidemic of untreated poor people has every touched the upper [and more deserving] classes. The plague, TB, polio, smallpox, HIV and now our super staph bacterium oozing pus from untreated poor people as they grab the same doorknobs we do. Sure, paved roads are much more of a NEED than universal health care.
Capitalistic pigs consistently fail to see the difference between rights, and needs..
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
He's not claiming we have a "right" to roads.
There is no right to roads, bridges, parks, schools, police and fire protection, or health care.
However, some things that everyone wants are best paid for by everyone.
It's a lot more practical than expecting private enterprise to provide such things.
Of course, cars to drive on those roads are best provided by the private sector, but those cars wouldn't be much good without the public sector and its roads and bridges.
Capitalist Pig
Well-Known Member
The responsibility to post roads is laid out in the constitution. It is a benefit to ALL American citizens. The ability to force some to pay for the lifestyle choices of others is not a power granted to our federal government. If liberals would just work within the federalist system that the constitution has laid out, we could all be satisfied. You can have your universal health care, and universal nutrition, and universal housing, and universal ass wiping over in Massachusetts. Just don't expect funds taken from the rest of America to pay for the gaping holes in your budget and the massive unemployment that these policies will create.
PS. You also did not answer my question. Odd that you wouldn't, since you chose to quote me.
How can something be a right if it must be provided by somebody else? Wouldn't that justify slavery? If I am guaranteed something, who am I empowered to force into providing it for me?
Sihouette
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,635
Just as healthcare is a benefit to ALL American citizens. We don't cover the poor and the poor carry an epidemic, guess who goes down? ALL American citzens.
Thanks for making the argument for me.
Besides, there was no inclusion for paved roads. Dirt tracks would save the taxpayers money. Why do I have to carry your high falutin' lifestyle when I have an offroad vehicle and you insist on fancy schmancy [and expensive] paved roads?
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Way to derail the topic Siho... Congratulations.
What is the proper role of the Federal Government?
My answer to that question is simple: To secure our rights. (Which is also the purpose stated in our declaration)
To that end, our Federal Government is justified in expenditures that serve to equally protect the rights of all citizens, such as; Police, courts and military.
And please, stop using the package deal fallacy of equating local, state and federal government as all being one in the same. Individual states pay for their roads, bridges, schools, libraries etc., and the federal government has no legitimate role in subsidizing those state activities.
It's not practical. We have ever increasing deficits and debts that show how completely impractical the violation of rights, and the forced redistribution of wealth, is on the national level and we have states like Michigan and California that show how disasterous such policies are on the state level.
That is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin... So I'll just as you a question:
What is the proper role of the Federal Government?
My answer to that question is simple: To secure our rights. (Which is also the purpose stated in our declaration)
To that end, our Federal Government is justified in expenditures that serve to equally protect the rights of all citizens, such as; Police, courts and military.
And please, stop using the package deal fallacy of equating local, state and federal government as all being one in the same. Individual states pay for their roads, bridges, schools, libraries etc., and the federal government has no legitimate role in subsidizing those state activities.
It's not practical. We have ever increasing deficits and debts that show how completely impractical the violation of rights, and the forced redistribution of wealth, is on the national level and we have states like Michigan and California that show how disasterous such policies are on the state level.
Sihouette
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,635
Since my comments are on topic and in response to the absurdity coming from your ilk Gen, I can only conclude that you saying I'm derailing the topic is actually you complaining that I successfully derailed the momentum of your defense of the absurd.
Really, why should you be able to force me to provide paved roads for you to drive on when my vehicle can drive an any unpaved track in any conditions? Why should I subsidize your lifestyle of choosing a 2 x 4 towncar?
In the reverse, why shouldn't you be forced to pay for a segement of the population's healthcare when that segment being unhealthy has historically proven to be unhealthy for everyone including you?
That is, spot on topic muchacho..the defense of the absurd..
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
The topic is taxpayers funding abortions... You've spun that into a general topic about taxation and healthcare.
How is forcing taxpayers to fund abortion a "benefit to ALL American citizens"?
OK, in an effort to get this thread back on topic:
No, public funding of abortion is not an acceptable role of the federal government. The government has no business taking my money and yours to pay for something that we disagree with.
That goes for wars as well, but that's yet another topic.
Taking money in order to build the interstate highway system is acceptable as it is a benefit to all, and it is covered in the Constitution under the subject of interstate commerce. Even if that's a stretch of the Constitution, it still is a benefit to everyone, and should be funded by everyone. The founders of the country could not possibly have foreseen the need for highways across the continent, nor the benefits of space exploration, nor he need to regulate air traffic, yet those are all done by the federal government. Would you have someone else fill the above roles? Who?
Capitalist Pig
Well-Known Member
Just as healthcare is a benefit to ALL American citizens. We don't cover the poor and the poor carry an epidemic, guess who goes down? ALL American citzens.
Thanks for making the argument for me.
Besides, there was no inclusion for paved roads. Dirt tracks would save the taxpayers money. Why do I have to carry your high falutin' lifestyle when I have an offroad vehicle and you insist on fancy schmancy [and expensive] paved roads?
Really, how is it a benefit to me to pay more for something I already have in order to provide it for others who choose not to earn it as I have?
Roads provide commerce to the entire nation. They allow business to flourish, and people to travel. You confiscating my personal property in order to buy the votes of those with their hands out is not beneficial to everybody.
Your lack of understanding of health care in this nation as it currently stands makes having an intelligent discussion with you difficult. Perhaps you were unaware that nobody in America can currently be denied treatment at a hospital? So spare me your apocalyptic predictions which you imagine justify economic slavery.
Werbung:
Capitalist Pig
Well-Known Member
True, I was making no such claim. I was simply pointing out that our federal government is empowered by the constitution to post roads. It is not empowered to confiscate my private property in order to buy the votes of those who choose not to provide health insurance for themselves.
