Debate Now Hey you! Give Me My Rights!

[Derideo_Te]

Does the wolf or the deer or the eagle that flies have the right to breathe the air it exists in? What law would give it that right? Or deny it that right? And if the other creatures on Earth have a natural right to breathe the air they must have to live at all, then so does man. The law can specify that we will die. But it cannot take from us our right to breathe so long as we live. The law can deny us the ability to exercise our natural rights. But it cannot take those rights from us.

Breathing is not a "right", it is a bodily function.

You might as well make the argument that we have a "right to food" because without food we die.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But the more imperative question that relates to the OP, what gives X a "right" to my money to pay for his/her healthcare?

As was explained in detail earlier it is NOT "your money" but what you owe to We the People for the services provided to everyone.

If you don't want to pay taxes then go somewhere that doesn't have any. If you want to live here then you have to pay taxes for the benefit of living in a civilized society.

 

[Foxfyre]

'How much right exists and where do we draw the line on what one citizen is entitled to of the earnings, labor, or property of others? Is Williams right that some things we call 'rights' are 'bogus rights' or should never be labeled rights at all?'

Our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity – they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any constitution, government, or man.

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government as authorized by the Constitution, and where government is restricted by that same Constitutional case law.

Our civil rights represent solely the relationship between the citizen and his government, not the relationship between one private citizen and another, or a private person and private organization; and if government acts in a manner the citizen perceives to be beyond government's authority, he may file suit in Federal court to seek relief.

The issue of what one citizen is entitled to of the earnings of others is addressed by government's authority to tax as authorized by the Constitution; neither government nor a private person can compel citizens to give their labor unwillingly and without compensation, nor may a citizen seek to take the property of another he is not entitled to. With regard to the relationship between the citizen and his government, the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment authorizes the doctrine of eminent domain, affording citizens the right to due process and just compensation.

Consequently, the issue doesn't concern what one might perceive as 'bogus rights,' rather it's a failure to understand the relationship between the government and those governed, how the Constitution and its case law defines that relationship, and that the relationship is indeed only between the government and private citizens.

But is the intent of the original law that government is authorized to tax for the purpose of funding the responsibilities of government that the people have assigned to government?

Or is the intent of the original law that government is authorized to confiscate property from one citizen and give it to another for any reason?

If government can pass any law allowing it to require us to do whatever it wants us to do and take from us whatever it wants to take, then doesn't it logically follow that the government has all the 'rights' and the people have none?

 

[Foxfyre]

Again, I ask: what gives "X" the right to have me pay for his/her healthcare or heating bill or rent or food or transportation or anything else?

What gives government the right to confiscate my time, or labor, or property for whatever it wants to do with that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your questions have been answered fully and competently, Foxfyre. My question to you "is why should be be bound by the Founders' intent" today? We are citizens with the right to direct our country in the direction in which we wish it to go. Before you say "but", we ended slavery, enfranchised women and blacks and Native Americans and older teen agers, which would have split the Founders in all sorts of groups, and so forth.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your questions have been answered fully and competently, Foxfyre. My question to you "is why should be be bound by the Founders' intent" today? We are citizens with the right to direct our country in the direction in which we wish it to go. Before you say "but", we ended slavery, enfranchised women and blacks and Native Americans and older teen agers, which would have split the Founders in all sorts of groups, and so forth.

We aren't directing the country. Over time we have allowed government full power to order us to do anything it wants to do and take from us anything it wants to take.

The OP addresses that and nobody has answered my question.

What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? And 'it is the law' is not an answer to the question. Nor is 'it is for the common good' an answer to the question. Remember it was once the law--approved by the Supreme Court--that slavery and segregation and women could not vote, blacks could not marry whites, etc. etc. etc. The law is not infallible obviously.

The question is: What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? This asks for a justification for the law. The law itself is not a justification.

 

[G.T.]

Your questions have been answered fully and competently, Foxfyre. My question to you "is why should be be bound by the Founders' intent" today? We are citizens with the right to direct our country in the direction in which we wish it to go. Before you say "but", we ended slavery, enfranchised women and blacks and Native Americans and older teen agers, which would have split the Founders in all sorts of groups, and so forth.

We aren't directing the country. Over time we have allowed government full power to order us to do anything it wants to do and take from us anything it wants to take.

The OP addresses that and nobody has answered my question.

What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? And 'it is the law' is not an answer to the question. Nor is 'it is for the common good' an answer to the question. Remember it was once the law--approved by the Supreme Court--that slavery and segregation and women could not vote, blacks could not marry whites, etc. etc. etc. The law is not infallible obviously.

The question is: What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? This asks for a justification for the law. The law itself is not a justification.

When you work enough to pay taxes your lifestyle is better. Its easier to afford, theres less stigma attached, etc.

When you live off of the government your quality of life is lesser. Its not desirable. You cant do as much enjoying of things such as vacations, movies and ballgames. It sucks. Its terrible.

The welfare recipient isnt some sitting pretty good life, its a crutch because the best country on earth doesnt let its least just DIE.

complain that theres fraud, and advantage takers. Thats a debate.

Complaining that assistance exists, at all? Then you, in my view, dont have "the right" to live and work in the greatest country on earth.

And thats all opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Rights are abstract concepts invented by man, they are only inherent in that in our study of behavior - we've determined they're necessary to ensure optimal growth as individuals.

And to clear up one issue, if you don't believe rights exist then this is not the thread for you.

The premise of this thread is that there ARE unalienable, Constitutional, civil, and legal rights and the discussion will be within the concept that such do exist. And some people lable as 'rights' what are actually bogus rights as Williams defined those.

So I return to the question related to what Williams defined as 'bogus rights':

What gives "X" a right to have me pay for his/her healthcare or any other necessities? Surely somebody is willing to wade in on that specific question without changing it to something else.

 

[G.T.]

Were they 'invented' by man? Or are unalienable rights as defined in the the OP something that has always existed and, with our Declaration of Independence that formed the concept for our Constitution, were recognized and acknowledged by man?

Invented. The concepts are meaningless without our brains. Aka non existent.

What is meaningful without our brains? Does that mean the Earth and Sky and atmosphere and trees and grass and love and hate and hope and creativity and innovation don't exist without our brains? To me that argument just doesn't wash.

Does the wolf or the deer or the eagle that flies have the right to breathe the air it exists in? What law would give it that right? Or deny it that right? And if the other creatures on Earth have a natural right to breathe the air they must have to live at all, then so does man. The law can specify that we will die. But it cannot take from us our right to breathe so long as we live. The law can deny us the ability to exercise our natural rights. But it cannot take those rights from us.

So the debate becomes whether we believe or endorse laws that would deny us the ability to exercise our natural rights--rights that require no participation or contribution from any other--or whether we believe liberty should prohibit any law that would deny us ability to exercise our natural rights.

Trees and air and such are physical objects, not concepts. Your analogy was flawed, thus creating a false choice.

Rights are merely theories on how best to cohabitate.

Okay, I accept that you don't believe in rights. So you probably won't find a lot to interest you in this thread. I'm sure you won't mind if others of us do discuss the topic though?

Well, youd be wrong. I believe in them....i just dont delude myself as to their origins. Thats all.

And just to be clear, youve been corrected on my belief or non.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your questions have been answered fully and competently, Foxfyre. My question to you "is why should be be bound by the Founders' intent" today? We are citizens with the right to direct our country in the direction in which we wish it to go. Before you say "but", we ended slavery, enfranchised women and blacks and Native Americans and older teen agers, which would have split the Founders in all sorts of groups, and so forth.

We aren't directing the country. Over time we have allowed government full power to order us to do anything it wants to do and take from us anything it wants to take.

The OP addresses that and nobody has answered my question.

What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? And 'it is the law' is not an answer to the question. Nor is 'it is for the common good' an answer to the question. Remember it was once the law--approved by the Supreme Court--that slavery and segregation and women could not vote, blacks could not marry whites, etc. etc. etc. The law is not infallible obviously.

The question is: What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? This asks for a justification for the law. The law itself is not a justification.

When you work enough to pay taxes your lifestyle is better. Its easier to afford, theres less stigma attached, etc.

When you live off of the government your quality of life is lesser. Its not desirable. You cant do as much enjoying of things such as vacations, movies and ballgames. It sucks. Its terrible.

The welfare recipient isnt some sitting pretty good life, its a crutch because the best country on earth doesnt let its least just DIE.

complain that theres fraud, and advantage takers. Thats a debate.

Complaining that assistance exists, at all? Then you, in my view, dont have "the right" to live and work in the greatest country on earth.

And thats all opinion.

I'm not arguing whether welfare recipients (or anybody else) need help or the affects of that on society. Nor have I complained that assistance exists--I have devoted a great deal of my life in vocations and avocations that provide assistance to others who need help or a leg up.

But the bottom line remains:
What gives "X" a right to require you or me or anybody else pay for his/her healthcare (or rent or food or transportation or childcare etc.)?

 

[G.T.]

Your questions have been answered fully and competently, Foxfyre. My question to you "is why should be be bound by the Founders' intent" today? We are citizens with the right to direct our country in the direction in which we wish it to go. Before you say "but", we ended slavery, enfranchised women and blacks and Native Americans and older teen agers, which would have split the Founders in all sorts of groups, and so forth.

We aren't directing the country. Over time we have allowed government full power to order us to do anything it wants to do and take from us anything it wants to take.

The OP addresses that and nobody has answered my question.

What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? And 'it is the law' is not an answer to the question. Nor is 'it is for the common good' an answer to the question. Remember it was once the law--approved by the Supreme Court--that slavery and segregation and women could not vote, blacks could not marry whites, etc. etc. etc. The law is not infallible obviously.

The question is: What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? This asks for a justification for the law. The law itself is not a justification.

When you work enough to pay taxes your lifestyle is better. Its easier to afford, theres less stigma attached, etc.

When you live off of the government your quality of life is lesser. Its not desirable. You cant do as much enjoying of things such as vacations, movies and ballgames. It sucks. Its terrible.

The welfare recipient isnt some sitting pretty good life, its a crutch because the best country on earth doesnt let its least just DIE.

complain that theres fraud, and advantage takers. Thats a debate.

Complaining that assistance exists, at all? Then you, in my view, dont have "the right" to live and work in the greatest country on earth.

And thats all opinion.

I'm not arguing whether welfare recipients (or anybody else) need help or the affects of that on society. Nor have I complained that assistance exists--I have devoted a great deal of my life in vocations and avocations that provide assistance to others who need help or a leg up.

But the bottom line remains:
What gives "X" a right to have you or me or anybody else pay for his/her healthcare (or rent or food or transportation or childcare etc.)?

Amd my answer was provided. They live in the best country on earth. Thats what.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your questions have been answered fully and competently, Foxfyre. My question to you "is why should be be bound by the Founders' intent" today? We are citizens with the right to direct our country in the direction in which we wish it to go. Before you say "but", we ended slavery, enfranchised women and blacks and Native Americans and older teen agers, which would have split the Founders in all sorts of groups, and so forth.

We aren't directing the country. Over time we have allowed government full power to order us to do anything it wants to do and take from us anything it wants to take.

The OP addresses that and nobody has answered my question.

What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? And 'it is the law' is not an answer to the question. Nor is 'it is for the common good' an answer to the question. Remember it was once the law--approved by the Supreme Court--that slavery and segregation and women could not vote, blacks could not marry whites, etc. etc. etc. The law is not infallible obviously.

The question is: What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? This asks for a justification for the law. The law itself is not a justification.

When you work enough to pay taxes your lifestyle is better. Its easier to afford, theres less stigma attached, etc.

When you live off of the government your quality of life is lesser. Its not desirable. You cant do as much enjoying of things such as vacations, movies and ballgames. It sucks. Its terrible.

The welfare recipient isnt some sitting pretty good life, its a crutch because the best country on earth doesnt let its least just DIE.

complain that theres fraud, and advantage takers. Thats a debate.

Complaining that assistance exists, at all? Then you, in my view, dont have "the right" to live and work in the greatest country on earth.

And thats all opinion.

I'm not arguing whether welfare recipients (or anybody else) need help or the affects of that on society. Nor have I complained that assistance exists--I have devoted a great deal of my life in vocations and avocations that provide assistance to others who need help or a leg up.

But the bottom line remains:
What gives "X" a right to have you or me or anybody else pay for his/her healthcare (or rent or food or transportation or childcare etc.)?

Amd my answer was provided. They live in the best country on earth. Thats what.

And that gives them a right to have others pay for whatever they need?

I need a new car that I don't worry about breaking down on the highway. Do I have a right to have you buy me one?

We all would benefit from eating healthy, fresh food and getting plenty of exercise. Do I have a right to have you to pay for my groceries and a gym membership? My husband needs hearing aids. Does he have a right for you to buy him some?

We live in the best country on earth. Why don't I have a right to require you to pay for what I need?

 

[G.T.]

Your questions have been answered fully and competently, Foxfyre. My question to you "is why should be be bound by the Founders' intent" today? We are citizens with the right to direct our country in the direction in which we wish it to go. Before you say "but", we ended slavery, enfranchised women and blacks and Native Americans and older teen agers, which would have split the Founders in all sorts of groups, and so forth.

We aren't directing the country. Over time we have allowed government full power to order us to do anything it wants to do and take from us anything it wants to take.

The OP addresses that and nobody has answered my question.

What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? And 'it is the law' is not an answer to the question. Nor is 'it is for the common good' an answer to the question. Remember it was once the law--approved by the Supreme Court--that slavery and segregation and women could not vote, blacks could not marry whites, etc. etc. etc. The law is not infallible obviously.

The question is: What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? This asks for a justification for the law. The law itself is not a justification.

When you work enough to pay taxes your lifestyle is better. Its easier to afford, theres less stigma attached, etc.

When you live off of the government your quality of life is lesser. Its not desirable. You cant do as much enjoying of things such as vacations, movies and ballgames. It sucks. Its terrible.

The welfare recipient isnt some sitting pretty good life, its a crutch because the best country on earth doesnt let its least just DIE.

complain that theres fraud, and advantage takers. Thats a debate.

Complaining that assistance exists, at all? Then you, in my view, dont have "the right" to live and work in the greatest country on earth.

And thats all opinion.

I'm not arguing whether welfare recipients (or anybody else) need help or the affects of that on society. Nor have I complained that assistance exists--I have devoted a great deal of my life in vocations and avocations that provide assistance to others who need help or a leg up.

But the bottom line remains:
What gives "X" a right to have you or me or anybody else pay for his/her healthcare (or rent or food or transportation or childcare etc.)?

Amd my answer was provided. They live in the best country on earth. Thats what.

And that gives them a right to have others pay for whatever they need?

I need a new car that I don't worry about breaking down on the highway. Do I have a right to have you buy me one?

We all would benefit from eating healthy, fresh food and getting plenty of exercise. Do I have a right to have you to pay for my groceries and a gym membership? My husband needs hearing aids. Does he have a right for you to buy him some?

We live in the best country on earth. Why don't I have a right to require you to pay for what I need?

You dont know what need means. Good thing youre not in charge.

All we, as the greatest nation, should provide the needy as temporary assistance is food, basic shelter, communication device and healthcare.

The rest of the stuff you listed dont qualify for my standard of what "need," is. But i see we differ on that, and thats cool.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your questions have been answered fully and competently, Foxfyre. My question to you "is why should be be bound by the Founders' intent" today? We are citizens with the right to direct our country in the direction in which we wish it to go. Before you say "but", we ended slavery, enfranchised women and blacks and Native Americans and older teen agers, which would have split the Founders in all sorts of groups, and so forth.

We aren't directing the country. Over time we have allowed government full power to order us to do anything it wants to do and take from us anything it wants to take.

The OP addresses that and nobody has answered my question.

What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? And 'it is the law' is not an answer to the question. Nor is 'it is for the common good' an answer to the question. Remember it was once the law--approved by the Supreme Court--that slavery and segregation and women could not vote, blacks could not marry whites, etc. etc. etc. The law is not infallible obviously.

The question is: What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? This asks for a justification for the law. The law itself is not a justification.

Sorry, it was answered. We provide for all with an armed force, or highways, or school systems, etc., whether one can pay taxes or not. ACA easily fits into that reasoning.

 

[Foxfyre]

We aren't directing the country. Over time we have allowed government full power to order us to do anything it wants to do and take from us anything it wants to take.

The OP addresses that and nobody has answered my question.

What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? And 'it is the law' is not an answer to the question. Nor is 'it is for the common good' an answer to the question. Remember it was once the law--approved by the Supreme Court--that slavery and segregation and women could not vote, blacks could not marry whites, etc. etc. etc. The law is not infallible obviously.

The question is: What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? This asks for a justification for the law. The law itself is not a justification.

When you work enough to pay taxes your lifestyle is better. Its easier to afford, theres less stigma attached, etc.

When you live off of the government your quality of life is lesser. Its not desirable. You cant do as much enjoying of things such as vacations, movies and ballgames. It sucks. Its terrible.

The welfare recipient isnt some sitting pretty good life, its a crutch because the best country on earth doesnt let its least just DIE.

complain that theres fraud, and advantage takers. Thats a debate.

Complaining that assistance exists, at all? Then you, in my view, dont have "the right" to live and work in the greatest country on earth.

And thats all opinion.

I'm not arguing whether welfare recipients (or anybody else) need help or the affects of that on society. Nor have I complained that assistance exists--I have devoted a great deal of my life in vocations and avocations that provide assistance to others who need help or a leg up.

But the bottom line remains:
What gives "X" a right to have you or me or anybody else pay for his/her healthcare (or rent or food or transportation or childcare etc.)?

Amd my answer was provided. They live in the best country on earth. Thats what.

And that gives them a right to have others pay for whatever they need?

I need a new car that I don't worry about breaking down on the highway. Do I have a right to have you buy me one?

We all would benefit from eating healthy, fresh food and getting plenty of exercise. Do I have a right to have you to pay for my groceries and a gym membership? My husband needs hearing aids. Does he have a right for you to buy him some?

We live in the best country on earth. Why don't I have a right to require you to pay for what I need?

You dont know what need means. Good thing youre not in charge.

All we, as the greatest nation, should provide the needy as temporary assistance is food, basic shelter, communication device and healthcare.

The rest of the stuff you listed dont qualify for my standard of what "need," is. But i see we differ on that, and thats cool.

The thread rules specify no ad hominem please.

And the issue is not 'need'. The issue is what one person is entitled to that the other person is required to provide that may or may not involve something that is needed.

And is it for the government to decide what people SHOULD do as citizens? Is health care any more than a need, for instance, than is food, water, shelter, clothing? On what basis can the government demand that I pay for your healthcare but not your food and water?

 

[koshergrl]

We aren't directing the country. Over time we have allowed government full power to order us to do anything it wants to do and take from us anything it wants to take.

The OP addresses that and nobody has answered my question.

What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? And 'it is the law' is not an answer to the question. Nor is 'it is for the common good' an answer to the question. Remember it was once the law--approved by the Supreme Court--that slavery and segregation and women could not vote, blacks could not marry whites, etc. etc. etc. The law is not infallible obviously.

The question is: What gives "X" who didn't work for it or do anything to earn it a right to my time, labor, or property? This asks for a justification for the law. The law itself is not a justification.

When you work enough to pay taxes your lifestyle is better. Its easier to afford, theres less stigma attached, etc.

When you live off of the government your quality of life is lesser. Its not desirable. You cant do as much enjoying of things such as vacations, movies and ballgames. It sucks. Its terrible.

The welfare recipient isnt some sitting pretty good life, its a crutch because the best country on earth doesnt let its least just DIE.

complain that theres fraud, and advantage takers. Thats a debate.

Complaining that assistance exists, at all? Then you, in my view, dont have "the right" to live and work in the greatest country on earth.

And thats all opinion.

I'm not arguing whether welfare recipients (or anybody else) need help or the affects of that on society. Nor have I complained that assistance exists--I have devoted a great deal of my life in vocations and avocations that provide assistance to others who need help or a leg up.

But the bottom line remains:
What gives "X" a right to have you or me or anybody else pay for his/her healthcare (or rent or food or transportation or childcare etc.)?

Amd my answer was provided. They live in the best country on earth. Thats what.

And that gives them a right to have others pay for whatever they need?

I need a new car that I don't worry about breaking down on the highway. Do I have a right to have you buy me one?

We all would benefit from eating healthy, fresh food and getting plenty of exercise. Do I have a right to have you to pay for my groceries and a gym membership? My husband needs hearing aids. Does he have a right for you to buy him some?

We live in the best country on earth. Why don't I have a right to require you to pay for what I need?

You dont know what need means. Good thing youre not in charge.

All we, as the greatest nation, should provide the needy as temporary assistance is food, basic shelter, communication device and healthcare.

The rest of the stuff you listed dont qualify for my standard of what "need," is. But i see we differ on that, and thats cool.

You forget where you're posting.

This is why these types of forums fail here. The leftists who post at usmb have no concept of how to make a structured (or intelligent) argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

When you work enough to pay taxes your lifestyle is better. Its easier to afford, theres less stigma attached, etc.

When you live off of the government your quality of life is lesser. Its not desirable. You cant do as much enjoying of things such as vacations, movies and ballgames. It sucks. Its terrible.

The welfare recipient isnt some sitting pretty good life, its a crutch because the best country on earth doesnt let its least just DIE.

complain that theres fraud, and advantage takers. Thats a debate.

Complaining that assistance exists, at all? Then you, in my view, dont have "the right" to live and work in the greatest country on earth.

And thats all opinion.

I'm not arguing whether welfare recipients (or anybody else) need help or the affects of that on society. Nor have I complained that assistance exists--I have devoted a great deal of my life in vocations and avocations that provide assistance to others who need help or a leg up.

But the bottom line remains:
What gives "X" a right to have you or me or anybody else pay for his/her healthcare (or rent or food or transportation or childcare etc.)?

Amd my answer was provided. They live in the best country on earth. Thats what.

And that gives them a right to have others pay for whatever they need?

I need a new car that I don't worry about breaking down on the highway. Do I have a right to have you buy me one?

We all would benefit from eating healthy, fresh food and getting plenty of exercise. Do I have a right to have you to pay for my groceries and a gym membership? My husband needs hearing aids. Does he have a right for you to buy him some?

We live in the best country on earth. Why don't I have a right to require you to pay for what I need?

You dont know what need means. Good thing youre not in charge.

All we, as the greatest nation, should provide the needy as temporary assistance is food, basic shelter, communication device and healthcare.

The rest of the stuff you listed dont qualify for my standard of what "need," is. But i see we differ on that, and thats cool.

You forget where you're posting.

This is why these types of forums fail here. The leftists who post at usmb have no concept of how to make a structured (or intelligent) argument.

Off topic:

They don't fail if enough people are interested and determined to help make them succeed. And sometimes there is a learning curve. I doubt you intended it as such but your comment about leftists is also ad hominem and could be against the thread rules if I had extended that to political parties and ideologies.

The forum will fail only if we don't have enough grown ups at USMB who WANT serious civil discussions of timely topics. I don't want to dictate what anybody else's opinion or perception must be--I wouldn't participate in a thread where that was mandatory because I can't imagine anything more boring. . .

. . .But I love the ability to insist that they focus on a specific concept and argue it within the framework I specify.

I honestly don't understand why something new and different seems so threatening to some people, most especially if it only applies to those who choose to participate. I just don't see why somebody would bother to participate just to complain about it being there. But that's another topic for another discussion. . . .I think I'll start a thread to discuss it.

But if we don't have enough grown ups who want focused discussion, then you're right. It will fail. Not because there are leftists but just because there aren't enough grown ups who want focused discussions.

Okay back on topic. . . .

So KG, why does "X" have a right to require me to pay for his/her healthcare or whatever/

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not arguing whether welfare recipients (or anybody else) need help or the affects of that on society. Nor have I complained that assistance exists--I have devoted a great deal of my life in vocations and avocations that provide assistance to others who need help or a leg up.

But the bottom line remains:
What gives "X" a right to have you or me or anybody else pay for his/her healthcare (or rent or food or transportation or childcare etc.)?

Amd my answer was provided. They live in the best country on earth. Thats what.

And that gives them a right to have others pay for whatever they need?

I need a new car that I don't worry about breaking down on the highway. Do I have a right to have you buy me one?

We all would benefit from eating healthy, fresh food and getting plenty of exercise. Do I have a right to have you to pay for my groceries and a gym membership? My husband needs hearing aids. Does he have a right for you to buy him some?

We live in the best country on earth. Why don't I have a right to require you to pay for what I need?

You dont know what need means. Good thing youre not in charge.

All we, as the greatest nation, should provide the needy as temporary assistance is food, basic shelter, communication device and healthcare.

The rest of the stuff you listed dont qualify for my standard of what "need," is. But i see we differ on that, and thats cool.

You forget where you're posting.

This is why these types of forums fail here. The leftists who post at usmb have no concept of how to make a structured (or intelligent) argument.

Off topic:

They don't fail if enough people are interested and determined to help make them succeed. And sometimes there is a learning curve. I doubt you intended it as such but your comment about leftists is also ad hominem and could be against the thread rules if I had extended that to political parties and ideologies.

The forum will fail only if we don't have enough grown ups at USMB who WANT serious civil discussions of timely topics. I don't want to dictate what anybody else's opinion or perception must be--I wouldn't participate in a thread where that was mandatory because I can't imagine anything more boring. . .

. . .But I love the ability to insist that they focus on a specific concept and argue it within the framework I specify.

I honestly don't understand why something new and different seems so threatening to some people, most especially if it only applies to those who choose to participate. I just don't see why somebody would bother to participate just to complain about it being there. But that's another topic for another discussion. . . .I think I'll start a thread to discuss it.

But if we don't have enough grown ups who want focused discussion, then you're right. It will fail. Not because there are leftists but just because there aren't enough grown ups who want focused discussions.

Okay back on topic. . . .

So KG, why does "X" have a right to require me to pay for his/her healthcare or whatever/

X doesn't have a right to do that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Amd my answer was provided. They live in the best country on earth. Thats what.

And that gives them a right to have others pay for whatever they need?

I need a new car that I don't worry about breaking down on the highway. Do I have a right to have you buy me one?

We all would benefit from eating healthy, fresh food and getting plenty of exercise. Do I have a right to have you to pay for my groceries and a gym membership? My husband needs hearing aids. Does he have a right for you to buy him some?

We live in the best country on earth. Why don't I have a right to require you to pay for what I need?

You dont know what need means. Good thing youre not in charge.

All we, as the greatest nation, should provide the needy as temporary assistance is food, basic shelter, communication device and healthcare.

The rest of the stuff you listed dont qualify for my standard of what "need," is. But i see we differ on that, and thats cool.

You forget where you're posting.

This is why these types of forums fail here. The leftists who post at usmb have no concept of how to make a structured (or intelligent) argument.

Off topic:

They don't fail if enough people are interested and determined to help make them succeed. And sometimes there is a learning curve. I doubt you intended it as such but your comment about leftists is also ad hominem and could be against the thread rules if I had extended that to political parties and ideologies.

The forum will fail only if we don't have enough grown ups at USMB who WANT serious civil discussions of timely topics. I don't want to dictate what anybody else's opinion or perception must be--I wouldn't participate in a thread where that was mandatory because I can't imagine anything more boring. . .

. . .But I love the ability to insist that they focus on a specific concept and argue it within the framework I specify.

I honestly don't understand why something new and different seems so threatening to some people, most especially if it only applies to those who choose to participate. I just don't see why somebody would bother to participate just to complain about it being there. But that's another topic for another discussion. . . .I think I'll start a thread to discuss it.

But if we don't have enough grown ups who want focused discussion, then you're right. It will fail. Not because there are leftists but just because there aren't enough grown ups who want focused discussions.

Okay back on topic. . . .

So KG, why does "X" have a right to require me to pay for his/her healthcare or whatever/

X doesn't have a right to do that.

Thank you. Now, if you are inclined to do so, could you explain why X doesn't have a right to do that for benefit of others who might not understand why?

 

[koshergrl]

And that gives them a right to have others pay for whatever they need?

I need a new car that I don't worry about breaking down on the highway. Do I have a right to have you buy me one?

We all would benefit from eating healthy, fresh food and getting plenty of exercise. Do I have a right to have you to pay for my groceries and a gym membership? My husband needs hearing aids. Does he have a right for you to buy him some?

We live in the best country on earth. Why don't I have a right to require you to pay for what I need?

You dont know what need means. Good thing youre not in charge.

All we, as the greatest nation, should provide the needy as temporary assistance is food, basic shelter, communication device and healthcare.

The rest of the stuff you listed dont qualify for my standard of what "need," is. But i see we differ on that, and thats cool.

You forget where you're posting.

This is why these types of forums fail here. The leftists who post at usmb have no concept of how to make a structured (or intelligent) argument.

Off topic:

They don't fail if enough people are interested and determined to help make them succeed. And sometimes there is a learning curve. I doubt you intended it as such but your comment about leftists is also ad hominem and could be against the thread rules if I had extended that to political parties and ideologies.

The forum will fail only if we don't have enough grown ups at USMB who WANT serious civil discussions of timely topics. I don't want to dictate what anybody else's opinion or perception must be--I wouldn't participate in a thread where that was mandatory because I can't imagine anything more boring. . .

. . .But I love the ability to insist that they focus on a specific concept and argue it within the framework I specify.

I honestly don't understand why something new and different seems so threatening to some people, most especially if it only applies to those who choose to participate. I just don't see why somebody would bother to participate just to complain about it being there. But that's another topic for another discussion. . . .I think I'll start a thread to discuss it.

But if we don't have enough grown ups who want focused discussion, then you're right. It will fail. Not because there are leftists but just because there aren't enough grown ups who want focused discussions.

Okay back on topic. . . .

So KG, why does "X" have a right to require me to pay for his/her healthcare or whatever/

X doesn't have a right to do that.

Thank you. Now, if you are inclined to do so, could you explain why X doesn't have a right to do that for benefit of others who might not understand why?

Because in a free society, the government is not charged with "leveling the playing field". We are not a country built on income redistribution, because societies that ARE based on income redistribution are in fact oppressive and fascist.