http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians what the founders were
really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one could produce riches without the
support of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6e9e55cbf4ab00b1?hl=en
* There is no "right" to health care - 20 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
* "Promote the general welfare of the United States" - doesn't mean what
leftists think - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3f1993b181e2faf4?hl=en
* ❤Paypal Payment❤Sneaker of Nike,Jordan,Gucci,Adidas,Puma,-EdhardyShox,Max,
Free,Rift%Polo-,Lacoste,BBC,Gucci,Armani,LV,C-hristina Audigier Tshirt and
Jeans[ www.wholesale789.com] - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/be227d98f3b5c328?hl=en
* The Future Of Solar Power - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fc636568c5669abd?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians what the founders
were really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one could produce riches without
the support of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it
back to society
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6e9e55cbf4ab00b1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 5:40 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
misc.consumers.frugal-living, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics,
soc.retirement, alt.california
lets remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians what the
founders were really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one could
produce riches without the support of society, so anyone who
accumulates property owes a part of it back to society for social
programs
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_dec2000.htm
Philosopher of the Month
December 2000 - Thomas Paine
Robin Harwood
The great and glorious Thomas Paine was a political theorist who tried
to put his theories into action. His aim was to free human beings from
oppressive government, oppressive religions, and oppressive poverty.
His method was to appeal to reason, so that all people could recognise
truth and justice. His achievements were spectacular. Paine invented
America, took part in the French Revolution, and inspired
revolutionary movements in Britain. The American Revolution was a
success, the French revolution was a disaster, and the British
Revolution never happened. Even so, Paine's ideas of democracy and
social welfare have been at least partly realized not only in these
countries, but in many other countries as well.
He was born in England, but his life there was difficult, and on
Benjamin Franklin's advice, he emigrated to the New World. Paine
arrived in Philadelphia in 1774, and took a job as editor for the
Pennsylvania Magazine. One of his first essays was a call for the
abolition of slavery. Inspired by the first moves of the American
Revolution, he wrote the pamphlet Common Sense (1776), in which he
argued that independence was both morally justified and the only
practical option for the American Colonies. The book was massively
influential, and converted many waverers, including Thomas Jefferson
and George Washington, to the idea of the United States of America
(Paine coined the name) as an independent nation.
After the War of Independence was over, he went to France, and then to
England, where he wrote The Rights of Man. Paine's message was clear
and powerful.
All individual human beings, he argued, are created with equal rights.
However, human beings do not live as isolated individuals, but as
members of society. In society we flourish fully, both because we can
enjoy the company of other people, and from being able to gain help
and support from each other. Nonetheless, human beings are not perfect
and so sometimes infringe each other's rights. As individuals we may
not have the power to exercise some of our rights, such as the right
to protect ourselves. Thus, we create the state to protect those
rights, and the individual's natural right is transformed into a civil
right of protection. Also, as members of the state, we gain additional
rights, such as the right to vote, and the right to run for office.
The only legitimate form of state is a democratic republic. Hereditary
monarchy is morally illegitimate, since it denies the current
generation the right to choose their own leaders.
Of course, Paine held that we also have duties. We have a duty to
protect the rights of our fellow citizens, and to maintain society,
but we also have to improve, enrich, and benefit society. This
includes the duty to eliminate poverty as much as we can. Paine
proposed a system of welfare to do just this. This welfare was not
charity, but a civil right.
The popularity of the book frightened the British Government. Paine
was outlawed for treason, and he fled to France. The British
revolutionary movements were squashed.
The French elected Paine to a seat in the National Convention. During
the Terror he was imprisoned and came close to being executed. After
his release, he took little active part in French politics, and
concentrated mostly on writing, particularly on religion and
economics. He produced The Age of Reason, arguing for Deism, and
against atheism and Christianity. He demonstrated that Christian
theology was unreasonable, and the doctrine of redemption was immoral.
He also showed that the Bible cannot be divine revelation, and
condemned it for its portrayal of God as cruel and vindictive.
In Agrarian Justice, he returned to the question of rights and social
justice. Civilization, he argued, should not throw people into a worse
condition than they would be in if they were uncivilized, and yet in
Europe many people were poorer than American Indians. The Earth had
been given by God as common property to all men, but the system of
land ownership meant that only some could use it. Paine argued that
they should compensate the others by paying a ground rent to society.
Also, he argued that no-one could produce riches without the support
of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society. This would provide funds for a social program that
included education, pensions, unemployment benefits, and maternity
benefits.
When Paine finally returned to America in 1802, his writings on
religion had made him an unpopular figure. Nonetheless, Paine did yet
another great service to his ungrateful country, in proposing that the
U.S.A. buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon. Jefferson took
Paine's advice, and thus more than doubled the size of the United
States.
Paine carried on writing to the end, but his old age was miserable,
and he died in obscurity. Officialdom has preferred to ignore him,
even when carrying out his proposals, and his name is seldom on the
lists of great men, and yet many of his ideas are common currency now.
However, much of the world is still not completely free from political
oppression, organized religion, and poverty. We can still learn from
him.
Suggested reading
Thomas Paine, A. J. Ayer, (Secker and Warburg)
The
Thomas Paine Reader, ed. Michael Foot and Isaac Kramnick (Penguin)
Tom
Paine: a political life, John Keane, (Little, Brown and Company)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 9:42 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Nickname unavailable wrote:
> misc.consumers.frugal-living, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics,
> soc.retirement, alt.california
>
> lets remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians what the
> founders were really about:Thomas Paine
Minor sideline player.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: There is no "right" to health care
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 5:46 pm
From: Geopinion
On Oct 10, 3:33 pm, John Q Public <my2ce...@me.com> wrote:
> On 2009-10-10 15:20:30 -0400, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:50:01 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 9, 5:42 pm, Geopinion <walk...@easystreet.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 9, 9:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>
> >>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
> >>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats,
> >>>>> but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may
> >>>>> subsequently decide to stop providing them.
> >>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
> >>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
> >>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you
> >>>>> must pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
> >>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare
> >>>>> poorly. That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
> >>>> There is a right to health care if we, the people, decide there is. We
> >>>> aren't limited to rights specifically outlined in the Constitution,
> >>>> but are assumed to possess a whole host of unenumerated rights. It is
> >>>> also within our power to decide that there are rights and policies
> >>>> that serve the greater good, and there is nothing in the constitution
> >>>> that prohibits that.
>
> >> Where is your "right" to force me to into your health care?
>
> >> Try amendment 9, your rights don't supersede my rights.
>
> > We have the right to protect ourselves from your ingrained stupidity and
> > the damage it causes us.
>
> Your a fucking idiot, your socialist policies you love are what got us
> to this point, the free market
> is the only solution, its not perfect and it doesn't provide your so
> called social justice but in the
> end it always be more efficient and fair than any other system- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The free market assumes several things: that everyone has sufficient
information to make a choice, that choices are not made under duress,
and that choices are available. It also assumes that the consumer has
the power to simply not make a choice at all - do without - as a way
of forcing the market to respond.
No one knows which physicians or hospitals provide the best care for
the least cost. That information is not available anywhere, so the
free market provides no choices for the health-care consumer.
No one can afford to take the time and perform the research needed to
determine where to get the most effective treatment for the least cost
in the shadow of a potentially life-threatening illness. So the free
market has no answers in that situation.
Rural areas and small towns may have only one source for health care,
so there are no choices to be made among competing providers because
there are no competing providers. The free market offers no solutions
there.
The same limits exist with regard to insurers; most people have no
choice but must use the insurer - and the participating physicians/
hospitals - their employer selects. Those without employer-provided
health care likewise have very limited choices and usually must simply
obtain coverage they can afford. So, the free market hasn't performed
for those people, either.
And people in need of health care aren't really in a position to
simply say, "Forget it, I'll go without," because sometimes that
decision means death or permanent disability for oneself or one's
child or spouse or parent. So, the consumer cannot influence the
market by rejecting the available choices.
Free-market zealots think the market is a one-size-fits-all solution
to everything - it's not. It works for commerce, only, and then only
for things that aren't vital to life.
MLW
== 2 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 6:17 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:05:41 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>
>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:59:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>
>>>> K wrote:
>>>>> RickMerrill wrote:
>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
>>>>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services to
>>>>>>> deadbeats, but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider
>>>>>>> may subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>>> screen TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>>> don't have a "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and
>>>>>>> services, you must pay for them, or you must persuade someone to
>>>>>>> give them to you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are
>>>>>>> weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>> You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've never
>>>>>> been sick, then you might not understand that sickness makes you
>>>>>> unhappy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have a constitutional right to purchase health care.
>>>>> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to contract,
>>>>> and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
>>>> Everything you buy is a contract....
>>> Unfortunately, we currently "buy" stuff for which we did not contract.
>> You don't, of course, which is why you had to put quotes around buy.
>
> Of course _I_ in particular do not have to buy your free medical care
> because I do not have private sector "for profit" medical insurance. But
> the vast majority with families must pay the rip off insurance companies
No. That's just infantile swearing.
== 3 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 6:20 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:25:51 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>
>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:25:39 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>
>>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> missussex wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>>>>>>>> screen
>>>>>>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you must
>>>>>>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>>>>>>>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll
>>>>>>>>>>>> fare poorly.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law
>>>>>>>>> enforcement, and firefighting services either.
>>>>>>>> That's right.
>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>>>>> True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
>>>>> services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a
>>>>> representative, constitutional democracy.
>>>> So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
>>>> families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's acceptable?
>>> It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable". Until it is struck down it is
>>> the law.
>> Revolutions occur over such things. No law trumps moral rights.
>
> Then that would be "struck down", wouldn't it??????
>
>>>> If
>>>> everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday
>>>> "your day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron bars,
>>>> is that acceptable?
>>> It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable".
>> It does matter.
>
> Nice editing job,
No editing.
>>>> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights.
>>> Right do not exist in "nature".
>> Human rights exist in the mind of man.
>
> Thank you for acknowledging reality. How monumental.
>
>>>> Rights specify
>>>> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not lawfully
>>>> do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
>>> Nope.
>> Yep.
>>
>>> That is a rightarded appeal to majority rule to do away with majority
>>> rule.
>> It's not.
>
> Yes.. It is.
It's not.
>> > If an overwhelming majority decide that individuals are
>>> to be stripped of some internally justified capacity to thwart the good
>>> of the whole of the society
>> No such good.
>
> That is your opinion,
No, it's a fact. "Society" is not an organic entity. It doesn't have a
welfare. There can be no "good of the society". There can only be
things that are good for people.
>>>> Seizing value
>>>> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to
>>>> be seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights.
>>> Though most of what happens regarding this particular subject is
>>> screech monkey dung, the definition of "rights" is a societal operation
>> Irrelevant. "The law" also is a societal construct. One societal
>> construct must yield to another, and the law must yield to rights.
>
> The law typically DOES yield to "rights".
So, since it is my right to control the use of my effort, the law cannot
dispossess me of it.
== 4 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 6:22 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> Wilson Woods wrote:
>
>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> missussex wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>>>>>>>> screen
>>>>>>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you must
>>>>>>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>>>>>>>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll
>>>>>>>>>>>> fare
>>>>>>>>>>>> poorly.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law
>>>>>>>>> enforcement,
>>>>>>>>> and firefighting services either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>>>>>
>>>>> True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
>>>>> services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a
>>>>> representative,
>>>>> constitutional democracy.
>>>>
>>>> So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
>>>> families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's acceptable? If
>>>> everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday "your
>>>> day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron bars, is
>>>> that
>>>> acceptable?
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights. Rights specify
>>>> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not lawfully
>>>> do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
>>>
>>>
>>> So far, so good. Our system does overlay individual rights on top of
>>> majority rule.
>>
>>
>> That's false. The rights come *first*; majority rule is merely a form
>> of government.
>
> OK. Majority rule is overlayed on rights.
>
>>>> Seizing value
>>>> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
>>>> seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights. We don't
>>>> need a welfare system or food stamps or nationalized health care in
>>>> order for unfortunate people to be cared for. None of that existed in
>>>> the 19th century, and no one starved to death. People voluntarily will
>>>> help those less fortunate; they always have.
>>>
>>>
>>> And here, we part ways on both the law (I don't believe you have a
>>> right to be free from taxation)
>>
>>
>> You have a right to be free from the seizure of your property merely
>> to give it to others. Government may tax to achieve the legitimate
>> functions of government: police, national defense, courts, and
>> operation of the departments of government. Government may not
>> legitimately tax you in order to hand the money over to others.
>> That's called looting.
>
> You and I have different views about the legitimate functions of
> government. I would include health care for all
You are wrong. That's stealing wealth from people to give it to others
- not a legitimate function of government.
>>> and the policy (people do not
>>> voluntarily provide health care,
>>
>>
>> That's a lie. Doctors traditionally gave away quite a lot of medical
>> care without compensation. It might not have been liver transplants
>> or open heart surgery, but you don't have a right to those anyway. If
>> you're the beneficiary of others' generosity, you don't have any power
>> to dictate the extent of it.
>
> I guess I was mistaken about the millions of people with inadequate
> health care in the USA.
You're mistaken about quite a lot.
== 5 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 6:23 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> Wilson Woods wrote:
>>
>>> The right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has more to
>>> do with the well being of the people, and being healthy by having a
>>> longer life span, lower infant mortality and affordable health care
>>> should not be reserved for those who can afford it, and no one else.
>>
>>
>> Yes, of course it should be reserved to those who can afford it.
>
> Did you just say longer life spans and lower infant mortality should be
> reserved to those who can afford it?
Are those only achievable via medical care?
You're not suggesting people have a right to longer life span, are you?
== 6 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 6:26 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Joe wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service. Someone
>> might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
>> doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
>> to stop providing them.
>>
>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>
>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>
> I believe health care is a right
It is not.
> just as every child has a right to an
> education.
That's not a right, either.
> These are not luxuries, but necessities.
There is no such thing as a "necessity". There are only wants. You
want a car, a big screen TV, lobster dinners, health care, a house, Air
Jordan shoes, education - you want lots of things. If you want them,
make them yourself or earn the money and buy them. You don't have a
right to any of them.
== 7 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 6:28 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:11:04 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>
>> Cyrus Purvis wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 3:25 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:25:39 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> missussex wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> big screen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> services, you must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll fare poorly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>>>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law
>>>>>>>>>>> enforcement, and firefighting services either.
>>>>>>>>>> That's right.
>>>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>>>> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>>>>>>> True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
>>>>>>> services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a
>>>>>>> representative, constitutional democracy.
>>>>>> So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
>>>>>> families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's acceptable?
>>>>> It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable". Until it is struck down it
>>>>> is the law.
>>>> Revolutions occur over such things. No law trumps moral rights.
>>>>
>>>>>> If
>>>>>> everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday
>>>>>> "your day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron
>>>>>> bars, is that acceptable?
>>>>> It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable".
>>>> It does matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights.
>>>>> Right do not exist in "nature".
>>>> Human rights exist in the mind of man.
>>>>
>>>>>> Rights specify
>>>>>> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not
>>>>>> lawfully do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
>>>>> Nope.
>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>>> That is a rightarded appeal to majority rule to do away with majority
>>>>> rule.
>>>> It's not.
>>>>
>>>> > If an overwhelming majority decide that individuals are
>>>>
>>>>> to be stripped of some internally justified capacity to thwart the
>>>>> good of the whole of the society
>>>> No such good.
>>>>
>>>>>> Seizing value
>>>>>> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to
>>>>>> be seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights.
>>>>> Though most of what happens regarding this particular subject is
>>>>> screech monkey dung, the definition of "rights" is a societal
>>>>> operation
>>>> Irrelevant. "The law" also is a societal construct. One societal
>>>> construct must yield to another, and the law must yield to rights.
>>>
>>> And where do those rights come from?
>> I know where they *DON'T* come from: they are not granted or given by
>> the state.
>
> Only those "rights" enforced by "the state" are of any economic or social
> benefit.
That's the only reason the state exists.
>>> The right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has more to
>>> do with the well being of the people, and being healthy by having a
>>> longer life span, lower infant mortality and affordable health care
>>> should not be reserved for those who can afford it, and no one else.
>> Yes, of course it should be reserved to those who can afford it.
>
> [snip a lot of pompous semi-lucid "rights" blather]
>
> To than say that these "rights" are only available to those who can
> afford it
Not what was said.
== 8 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 6:40 pm
From: Josh Rosenbluth
Wilson Woods wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
>> Wilson Woods wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> The right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has more to
>>>> do with the well being of the people, and being healthy by having a
>>>> longer life span, lower infant mortality and affordable health care
>>>> should not be reserved for those who can afford it, and no one else.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, of course it should be reserved to those who can afford it.
>>
>>
>> Did you just say longer life spans and lower infant mortality should
>> be reserved to those who can afford it?
>
>
> Are those only achievable via medical care?
In some cases, no. In others yes. So in the aggregate (and that's what
life spans and mortality rates are - aggregate measures), medical care
leads to longer life spans and lower infant mortality rates.
Whether you care to admit or not, your position logically leads to the
conclusion that longer life span and lower infant mortality rates are
for those who can afford it. And for those who cannot, maybe they
should die quickly?
> You're not suggesting people have a right to longer life span, are you?
Nope, but IMO they have a right to medical care that gives them the best
chance.
Josh Rosenbluth
== 9 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 6:51 pm
From: Geopinion
On Oct 10, 6:26 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 2:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> >> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service. Someone
> >> might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
> >> doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
> >> to stop providing them.
>
> >> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
> >> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
> >> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
> >> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
> >> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>
> >> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>
> > I believe health care is a right
>
> It is not.
>
> > just as every child has a right to an
> > education.
>
> That's not a right, either.
We, as a nation, have decided that education is a right. That kind of
decision is allowed under the constitution.
MLW
>
> > These are not luxuries, but necessities.
>
> There is no such thing as a "necessity". There are only wants. You
> want a car, a big screen TV, lobster dinners, health care, a house, Air
> Jordan shoes, education - you want lots of things. If you want them,
> make them yourself or earn the money and buy them. You don't have a
> right to any of them.- Hide quoted text -
>
It is unlikely that we as a nation would decide that everyone had a
right to a big-screen TV. We have already decided that free
broadcasting was in the interest of the national good, especially
since it is a way of providing important and critical information to
the population, just as we decided that rural electrification,
airports, a national highway system, police and fire protection,
worker safety, child-labor laws, safe food and clean water and air
serve the greater good, even those none of those things is
specifically outlined in the constitution. All that stuff about Air
Jordans, etc., is a strawman argument and misses the point entirely.
MLW
> - Show quoted text -
== 10 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 8:20 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:17:07 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
> Michael Coburn wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:05:41 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:59:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>> RickMerrill wrote:
>>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
>>>>>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services to
>>>>>>>> deadbeats, but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the
>>>>>>>> provider may subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>>>> screen TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>>>> don't have a "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and
>>>>>>>> services, you must pay for them, or you must persuade someone to
>>>>>>>> give them to you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are
>>>>>>>> weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>> You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've
>>>>>>> never been sick, then you might not understand that sickness makes
>>>>>>> you unhappy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have a constitutional right to purchase health care.
>>>>>> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to
>>>>>> contract, and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
>>>>> Everything you buy is a contract....
>>>> Unfortunately, we currently "buy" stuff for which we did not
>>>> contract.
>>> You don't, of course, which is why you had to put quotes around buy.
>>
>> Of course _I_ in particular do not have to buy your free medical care
>> because I do not have private sector "for profit" medical insurance.
>> But the vast majority with families must pay the rip off insurance
>> companies
>
> No. That's just infantile swearing.
What a hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You talking about "infantile".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
== 11 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 8:29 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:22:46 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> Wilson Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> missussex wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> big screen
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> services, you must
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll fare
>>>>>>>>>>>>> poorly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law
>>>>>>>>>> enforcement,
>>>>>>>>>> and firefighting services either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
>>>>>> services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a
>>>>>> representative,
>>>>>> constitutional democracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
>>>>> families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's acceptable?
>>>>> If everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday
>>>>> "your day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron
>>>>> bars, is that
>>>>> acceptable?
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights. Rights specify
>>>>> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not
>>>>> lawfully do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So far, so good. Our system does overlay individual rights on top of
>>>> majority rule.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's false. The rights come *first*; majority rule is merely a form
>>> of government.
>>
>> OK. Majority rule is overlayed on rights.
>>
>>>>> Seizing value
>>>>> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to
>>>>> be seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights. We
>>>>> don't need a welfare system or food stamps or nationalized health
>>>>> care in order for unfortunate people to be cared for. None of that
>>>>> existed in the 19th century, and no one starved to death. People
>>>>> voluntarily will help those less fortunate; they always have.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And here, we part ways on both the law (I don't believe you have a
>>>> right to be free from taxation)
>>>
>>>
>>> You have a right to be free from the seizure of your property merely
>>> to give it to others. Government may tax to achieve the legitimate
>>> functions of government: police, national defense, courts, and
>>> operation of the departments of government. Government may not
>>> legitimately tax you in order to hand the money over to others. That's
>>> called looting.
>>
>> You and I have different views about the legitimate functions of
>> government. I would include health care for all
>
> You are wrong. That's stealing wealth from people to give it to others
> - not a legitimate function of government.
But you believe that it _IS_ a legitimate function of government. It
just matters as to who is doing the stealing. If those doing the
stealing are rightarded rich pigs then such theft is OK.
This is why very high rates of tax on very high incomes is warranted and
just. Such incomes are theft.
>>>> and the policy (people do not
>>>> voluntarily provide health care,
>>>
>>>
>>> That's a lie. Doctors traditionally gave away quite a lot of medical
>>> care without compensation. It might not have been liver transplants
>>> or open heart surgery, but you don't have a right to those anyway. If
>>> you're the beneficiary of others' generosity, you don't have any power
>>> to dictate the extent of it.
>>
>> I guess I was mistaken about the millions of people with inadequate
>> health care in the USA.
>
> You're mistaken about quite a lot.
You can choose. You are, ignorant, or a liar, or both.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
== 12 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 8:32 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:20:17 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
> Michael Coburn wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:25:51 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:25:39 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> missussex wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> big screen
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> services, you must
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll fare poorly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law
>>>>>>>>>> enforcement, and firefighting services either.
>>>>>>>>> That's right.
>>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>>> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>>>>>> True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
>>>>>> services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a
>>>>>> representative, constitutional democracy.
>>>>> So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
>>>>> families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's acceptable?
>>>> It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable". Until it is struck down it
>>>> is the law.
>>> Revolutions occur over such things. No law trumps moral rights.
>>
>> Then that would be "struck down", wouldn't it??????
>>
>>>>> If
>>>>> everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday
>>>>> "your day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron
>>>>> bars, is that acceptable?
>>>> It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable".
>>> It does matter.
>>
>> Nice editing job,
>
> No editing.
>
>
>>>>> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights.
>>>> Right do not exist in "nature".
>>> Human rights exist in the mind of man.
>>
>> Thank you for acknowledging reality. How monumental.
>>
>>>>> Rights specify
>>>>> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not
>>>>> lawfully do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
>>>> Nope.
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>> That is a rightarded appeal to majority rule to do away with majority
>>>> rule.
>>> It's not.
>>
>> Yes.. It is.
>
> It's not.
>
>
>>> > If an overwhelming majority decide that individuals are
>>>> to be stripped of some internally justified capacity to thwart the
>>>> good of the whole of the society
>>> No such good.
>>
>> That is your opinion,
>
> No, it's a fact. "Society" is not an organic entity. It doesn't have a
> welfare. There can be no "good of the society". There can only be
> things that are good for people.
As I said: Your opinion.
>>>>> Seizing value
>>>>> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to
>>>>> be seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights.
>>>> Though most of what happens regarding this particular subject is
>>>> screech monkey dung, the definition of "rights" is a societal
>>>> operation
>>> Irrelevant. "The law" also is a societal construct. One societal
>>> construct must yield to another, and the law must yield to rights.
>>
>> The law typically DOES yield to "rights".
>
> So, since it is my right to control the use of my effort, the law cannot
> dispossess me of it.
As I said, lying pig: You can sit in a jail cell and believe whatever
the hell you want.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
== 13 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 8:48 pm
From: Beam Me Up Scotty
Wilson Woods wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 2:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service. Someone
>>> might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
>>> doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
>>> to stop providing them.
>>>
>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>
>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>
>> I believe health care is a right
>
What if I believe Cookies are a right?
> It is not.
>
>
>> just as every child has a right to an
>> education.
>
Yes as they have a right to a cookie
> That's not a right, either.
>
>
>> These are not luxuries, but necessities.
>
Cookies are absolutely necessary.... The only question now is, where to
build that United States Government cookie Factory and how to get them
to the children so their rights aren't violated.
> There is no such thing as a "necessity". There are only wants. You
> want a car, a big screen TV, lobster dinners, health care, a house, Air
> Jordan shoes, education - you want lots of things. If you want them,
> make them yourself or earn the money and buy them. You don't have a
> right to any of them.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
We couldn't make stuff up that's this good. Liberals are their own
worst enemy.
== 14 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 9:44 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Oct 9, 10:57 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 5:51 pm, Rudy Canoza <jonbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 9, 2:10 pm, Mrs Irish Mike <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 9, 1:53 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 9, 1:44 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> False. I created the value that I traded to obtain the things I own.
> >>>>>>>> In some few cases - not many - I created the things I own myself. I
> >>>>>>>> have a right to them; no one else has any right to them.
> >>>>>>>> No one has a right to my effort.
> >>>>>>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you, mine
> >>>>>>> mine mine mine.
> >>>>>>> Solution: remedial preschool in order to fully comprehend the lesson
> >>>>>>> of sharing.
> >>>>>> You think taxation is "sharing"?
> >>>>>> Please. The issue has more moving parts than that.
> >>>>>> JG
> >>>>> I am waiting for all you John Galts to shit or get off the pot.
> >>>> Wait all you like. Are you doing to answer the question? Is taxation, to
> >>>> you "sharing?"
> >>>> Take
> >>>>> to 'superior' minds and riches and move to some 'effing island like
> >>>>> you 'threaten' to.
> >>>> Many already have, many more probably will. Are you going to answer the
> >>>> question?
> >>>> The sooner you leave the better for the rest of
> >>>>> Americans.
> >>>> I *am* an American, and have as many votes as you do. (OK, I guess
> >>>> you're not going to answer the question.)
> >>>>> So when you leaving?
> >>>> My preference is to beat you looters' heads into the ground. You never
> >>>> succeed for long, since your economic policies are unsustainable, and
> >>>> the electorate always comes to their senses.
> >>>> This time, it looks like a very short learning curve.
> >>>> JG- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Your name you use is John Galt. John Galt was rich and talented. Are
> >>> you? John Galt left because he didn't want to share. So when are you
> >>> leaving? That is the question.
> >>> To your question, no I don't think taxing is sharing. Your money is
> >>> not your money. Your money belongs to the USA, it says so right on the
> >>> bill.
> >> That's a lie, of course. It says no such thing.
>
> > only the government has the power to create money.
>
> Actually, that's not always true. Whether true or not, the government
> doesn't create the value that money represents.
>
just because we are ruled by conservative nut cases that have turned
over the power of money to the private sector(the fed, shadow banking
system), and allow it to float, does not mean that we cannot do away
with that system either. here is another fact for the ones who
understand the power of the constitution, of course you are impervious
to facts, logic, and reason, and your own personal opinion you
consider to be a fact, and the final word, you look really stupid.
part of section 8 of the constitution.
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
> You truly are ignorant.
that is all you have, nothing.
== 15 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 9:45 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Oct 9, 10:57 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> >> missussex wrote:
> >>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> >>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
> >>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
> >>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
> >>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
> >>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
> >>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
> >>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law enforcement,
> >>> and firefighting services either.
> >> That's right.
>
> > liar.
>
> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
a personal opinion.
== 16 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 9:45 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> Wilson Woods wrote:
>
>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>
>>> Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has more to
>>>>> do with the well being of the people, and being healthy by having a
>>>>> longer life span, lower infant mortality and affordable health care
>>>>> should not be reserved for those who can afford it, and no one else.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, of course it should be reserved to those who can afford it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you just say longer life spans and lower infant mortality should
>>> be reserved to those who can afford it?
>>
>>
>> Are those only achievable via medical care?
>
> In some cases, no. In others yes. So in the aggregate (and that's what
> life spans and mortality rates are - aggregate measures), medical care
> leads to longer life spans and lower infant mortality rates.
To which no one has a "right".
> Whether you care to admit or not, your position logically leads to the
> conclusion that longer life span and lower infant mortality rates are
> for those who can afford it.
I have no problem admitting that. That's exactly how it is.
>> You're not suggesting people have a right to longer life span, are you?
>
> Nope, but IMO they have a right to medical care that gives them the best
> chance.
They do not. Having a "right" to medical care means someone else must
be forced to give it to them. We have established that no one has any
right to any good or service. *All* your rights are negative rights
held against the state.
== 17 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 9:46 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Geopinion wrote:
> On Oct 10, 6:26 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Joe wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 2:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service. Someone
>>>> might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
>>>> doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
>>>> to stop providing them.
>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>> I believe health care is a right
>> It is not.
>>
>>> just as every child has a right to an
>>> education.
>> That's not a right, either.
>
>
> We, as a nation, have decided that education is a right. That kind of
> decision is allowed under the constitution.
>
> MLW
>>> These are not luxuries, but necessities.
>> There is no such thing as a "necessity". There are only wants. You
>> want a car, a big screen TV, lobster dinners, health care, a house, Air
>> Jordan shoes, education - you want lots of things. If you want them,
>> make them yourself or earn the money and buy them. You don't have a
>> right to any of them.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> It is unlikely that we as a nation would decide that everyone had a
> right to a big-screen TV.
There is as much of a rationale for providing big screen TVs as there is
for providing health care, which is to say, *zero* rationale for either.
Both are things that people want. There's no rationale for forcing
some people to pay for goods and services for other people.
== 18 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 9:46 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Oct 9, 10:57 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 9:35 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> >>>> False. I created the value that I traded to obtain the things I own.
> >>>> In some few cases - not many - I created the things I own myself. I
> >>>> have a right to them; no one else has any right to them.
> >>>> No one has a right to my effort.
> >>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you, mine
> >>> mine mine mine.
> >> Right. Piss and moan all you like, but it doesn't change the *fact*
> >> that no one has a right to my effort.
>
> > liar. taxes are enshrined in the constitution.
>
> No one has a right to my effort.
liar,
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
THOMAS PAINE argued that no-one could produce riches without the
support of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of
it back to society. This would provide funds for a social program that
included education, pensions, unemployment benefits, and maternity
benefits."
== 19 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 9:49 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Oct 10, 9:56 am, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hapg7f$s3p$1@josh.motzarella.org...
>
> >K wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>
> >>>> missussex wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
> >>>>>>>> screen
> >>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you
> >>>>>>>> must
> >>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
> >>>>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare
> >>>>>>>> poorly.
> >>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>
> >>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law enforcement,
> >>>>> and firefighting services either.
>
> >>>> That's right.
>
> >>> liar.
>
> >> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>
> > True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
> > services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a representative,
> > constitutional democracy.
>
> > Josh Rosenbluth
>
> -
> The law does not in the strict sense define that there is a "right". The
> problem is that people who want some special accomodation make up a
> non-existent "right" and use that claim to pass legislation. That doesn't
> mean that the "right" really exists.
THOMAS PAINE, argued that no-one could produce riches without the
support of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of
it back to society. This would provide funds for a social program that
included education, pensions, unemployment benefits, and maternity
benefits."
== 20 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 9:50 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:17:07 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>
>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:05:41 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:59:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>> RickMerrill wrote:
>>>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
>>>>>>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services to
>>>>>>>>> deadbeats, but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the
>>>>>>>>> provider may subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>>>>> screen TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>>>>> don't have a "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and
>>>>>>>>> services, you must pay for them, or you must persuade someone to
>>>>>>>>> give them to you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are
>>>>>>>>> weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>>> You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've
>>>>>>>> never been sick, then you might not understand that sickness makes
>>>>>>>> you unhappy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have a constitutional right to purchase health care.
>>>>>>> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to
>>>>>>> contract, and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
>>>>>> Everything you buy is a contract....
>>>>> Unfortunately, we currently "buy" stuff for which we did not
>>>>> contract.
>>>> You don't, of course, which is why you had to put quotes around buy.
>>> Of course _I_ in particular do not have to buy your free medical care
>>> because I do not have private sector "for profit" medical insurance.
>>> But the vast majority with families must pay the rip off insurance
>>> companies
>> No. That's just infantile swearing.
>
> What a hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You talking about "infantile".
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Plagiarizing "Dilbert" dialog is also infantile.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Promote the general welfare of the United States" - doesn't mean what
leftists think
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3f1993b181e2faf4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 6:29 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Oct 10, 12:21 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 10:40 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>> Tater Gumfries wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 8, 12:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>>>>> That ain't what the founders said about it.
>>>> It is.
>>> nope,
>> Yep.
>
> chirp, chirp, chirp
You aren't very articulate.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ❤Paypal Payment❤Sneaker of Nike,Jordan,Gucci,Adidas,Puma,-EdhardyShox,
Max,Free,Rift%Polo-,Lacoste,BBC,Gucci,Armani,LV,C-hristina Audigier Tshirt and
Jeans[ www.wholesale789.com]
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/be227d98f3b5c328?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 7:35 pm
From: jacists
Nike Air Jordan[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Jordan-J1[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Jordan-J3[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J4[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J5[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J6[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J7[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J8[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J9[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J10[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan 11[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J12[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J13[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J14[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J16[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J17[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J18[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J19[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J23[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J24[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J25[ www.wholesale789.com]
Jordan True Flight[ www.wholesale789.com]
+Air Jordan Fusion[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J13+16[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J11 Obama[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J11 Antho[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J5 mixman[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J1 23[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan Mix9[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan Anthony M[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan mix3[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J23 mix[ www.wholesale789.com]
Jordan J13+AF1 new[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J12mix[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J11 mix6[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J11 23wom[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J1+AF1[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan mix1257[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan fly 45[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan mix6[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan 6+AF1[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan mix[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan J20AF1[ www.wholesale789.com]
+Nike Air Max[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Max 97[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Max 92[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Max 90[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Max-Yeezy[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Max 09[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Max-TN[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Jordan LTD2[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Max-Skyline[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Max-miniBMW[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Max-2009[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Max180[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Max 95[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Max 91[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-ID[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air Max 87[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Max-2003[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air max 5[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Max-Tailwind-09[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Max-new-180[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Max-LTD[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Max-2006[ www.wholesale789.com]
+Nike Shox[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-air-Plata[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-shox-TR[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-shox-TL3[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-shox-R3[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-shox-new[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-shox-87[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-shox-97[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-shox-NZ[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-shox-R4[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-shox-R5[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-shox-TL1[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-shox-OZ[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-shox-TZ[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-shox-torch[ www.wholesale789.com]
+Air Force 1[ www.wholesale789.com]
AF1-low-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
AF1-Supreme-TZ-man[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Force-1[ www.wholesale789.com]
+Nike Rift[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-Rift[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-Air-zenyth[ www.wholesale789.com]
+Adidas Shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
Adidas-Good-Year2[ www.wholesale789.com]
Adidas-Good-Year[ www.wholesale789.com]
+Puma Shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
Puma-6[ www.wholesale789.com]
Puma-new[ www.wholesale789.com]
Puma-Kimi-Rainkkonen[ www.wholesale789.com]
Puma-Anniversary[ www.wholesale789.com]
Puma-8813[ www.wholesale789.com]
Puma-5[ www.wholesale789.com]
Puma-woman-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
Puma-man-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
Puma-centennial[ www.wholesale789.com]
Puma[ www.wholesale789.com]
+Nike Blazer[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-Blazer[ www.wholesale789.com]
+Edhardy Shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
woman-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
Casual-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
canvas-high-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
man-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
canvas-low-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
+Gucci Shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
woman-high-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
Gucci-shoes-A[ www.wholesale789.com]
Man-high-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
woman-low-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
Gucci-size14[ www.wholesale789.com]
Man-low-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
+Lacoste Shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
Lacoste-white-man[ www.wholesale789.com]
Lacoste-woman-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
Lacoste-man-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
+Prada Shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
Prada-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
+Coach Shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
Coach-woman-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
Coach-man-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
+D&G Shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
D&G-man-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
D&G-new-shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
+Kid shoes[ www.wholesale789.com]
Timberland-kid[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-Shox-R5-Kid[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Max-TN-Kid[ www.wholesale789.com]
Air-Jordan-Kid[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-Shox-Torch1-Kid[ www.wholesale789.com]
Nike-Shox-R4-Kid[ www.wholesale789.com]
Jimmy Hoo<www.wholesale789.com>
Fendi<www.wholesale789.com>
Coach<www.wholesale789.com>
Burberrys<www.wholesale789.com>
Jordan<www.wholesale789.com>
Ed hardy<www.wholesale789.com>
Gucci<www.wholesale789.com>
Chanel<www.wholesale789.com>
D&G<www.wholesale789.com>
+Strap Series<www.wholesale789.com>
Gucci-Strap<www.wholesale789.com>
Bape-strap<www.wholesale789.com>
Edhardy-strap<www.wholesale789.com>
Afflirtion-strap<www.wholesale789.com>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Future Of Solar Power
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fc636568c5669abd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 8:54 pm
From: Ricki
The Future Of Solar Power
Go Green Create Your Home Solar Power
Save your Money Today for Bill!
http://earth-4energy-review.123probiz.com
Go Green :)
Ricki Sofjan
Marketing
http://www.gogonai.info/?id=wealthclub
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment