Morally Bizarre

[koshergrl]

It would be immoral if we didn't have an entirely volunteer army.

As it is, no it's not immoral at all. And my children and my uncles and my father all volunteered to fight for my freedom. So freedom is absolutely my right.

And in fact it is the right of everybody.

Cool, then it isn't immoral to cover basic health care insurance for the poor.

Oh it's random association day. I get it.

Flipping moron.

 

[Ravi]

It would be immoral if we didn't have an entirely volunteer army.

As it is, no it's not immoral at all. And my children and my uncles and my father all volunteered to fight for my freedom. So freedom is absolutely my right.

And in fact it is the right of everybody.

Cool, then it isn't immoral to cover basic health care insurance for the poor.

Oh it's random association day. I get it.

Flipping moron.

There's no need to sign your posts.

 

[koshergrl]

Do you at least recognize the contradiction of claiming the service of others as a right?

What do you mean by "the service of others?"
I recognize health care and education are rights independent of an individual's ability to pay.

You can recognize it all you like..you don't have a RIGHT to the fruits of others' labor/education/resources.

People pay to educate themselves, they pay for their licenses, they pay for their supplies, they pay for their assistants and garbage service and rent.

You don't have a RIGHT to the services they provide. Those things don't belong to you. They belong to THEM. And they have the RIGHT to share them with you, for a fee, to repay them for their hard work, the years of effort, the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have spent, in order to acquire the knowledge and the resources to provide a service.

Where in this discussion has it been said that you shouldn't get rewarded for the services you provide?
Your black or white arguments are so clownish I bet that you could fit 50 of them in a Volkswagen.

Er...."I recognize health care and education are rights independent of an individual's ability to pay."

You're welcome. I see you suffer short term memory loss. That can be a difficult cross to bear in this venue.

 

[dblack]

Ok, so you are thinking of something fundamentally different.

Perhaps.

I'm conceiving of rights as liberties that are protected by government. That's why we need a government, and why we grant it the exclusive power to use violence to achieve its ends. We create government to protect our freedom. We don't need government to acquire the goods and services we want and need; we don't need to resort to violence to take care of ourselves.

But those rights are defined by the society served by the government.
If a society decided that healthcare was a right then there would be no 'acquisition' involved - it would be there for everyone to use as required.

What do you mean by "it would be there"? Society can't alter the nature of reality. Society can't just decree that everyone should have healthcare and expect it to be so. We have to make that happen somehow.

Healthcare isn't an innate freedom, it's a service that someone else must provide. I suppose that's what you're failing to grasp about "rights". Government doesn't (and in fact, can't) create rights. They are innate by-products of volition, not gifts from on high.

I understand your point, I just don't agree.

No, you really don't understand what I'm saying. But I won't belabor the point anymore.

 

[idb]

Do you at least recognize the contradiction of claiming the service of others as a right?

What do you mean by "the service of others?"
I recognize health care and education are rights independent of an individual's ability to pay.

You can recognize it all you like..you don't have a RIGHT to the fruits of others' labor/education/resources.

People pay to educate themselves, they pay for their licenses, they pay for their supplies, they pay for their assistants and garbage service and rent.

You don't have a RIGHT to the services they provide. Those things don't belong to you. They belong to THEM. And they have the RIGHT to share them with you, for a fee, to repay them for their hard work, the years of effort, the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have spent, in order to acquire the knowledge and the resources to provide a service.

Where in this discussion has it been said that you shouldn't get rewarded for the services you provide?
Your black or white arguments are so clownish I bet that you could fit 50 of them in a Volkswagen.

Er...."I recognize health care and education are rights independent of an individual's ability to pay."

You're welcome. I see you suffer short term memory loss. That can be a difficult cross to bear in this venue.

Eer...
A/ That's not my statement.
2/ Where does it say that the people that provide it don't get any reward?

I see that you suffer from comprehension issues...keep trying though...you're as special as everyone else.

 

[georgephillip]

You can recognize it all you like..you don't have a RIGHT to the fruits of others' labor/education/resources.

People pay to educate themselves, they pay for their licenses, they pay for their supplies, they pay for their assistants and garbage service and rent

I'm not saying I have a right that requires others to provide me with a service for free; what I am trying to suggest is my right to health care and education is no different from my right to courts, police, and other public service institutions which we have all collectively agreed to pay for in order to enhance our individual benefit.

 

[koshergrl]

And you're wrong.

 

[koshergrl]

Judges do not provide individual services to people for particular ailments.
They act to preserve the order of our land and our government.

Physicians do not. We do not have to have physicians in order to preserve the order of our nation. We do not have to be healthy in order to ensure that our freedom and liberty is preserved.

Our bodies belong to us..they are the only thing that we are guaranteed, and it is our own responsibility to tend them. My health has nothing to do with anybody else. I don't expect or want anyone else dictating, paying for, or involving themselves in my medical issues. The whole idea that anybody in this country has ever been denied medical care because they're unable to pay was a complete LIE.....until we jumped into the nightmare that is Obamacare. Now people are being denied medical care on a regular basis.

 

[idb]

Judges do not provide individual services to people for particular ailments.
They act to preserve the order of our land and our government.

Physicians do not. We do not have to have physicians in order to preserve the order of our nation. We do not have to be healthy in order to ensure that our freedom and liberty is preserved.

Our bodies belong to us..they are the only thing that we are guaranteed, and it is our own responsibility to tend them. My health has nothing to do with anybody else. I don't expect or want anyone else dictating, paying for, or involving themselves in my medical issues. The whole idea that anybody in this country has ever been denied medical care because they're unable to pay was a complete LIE.....until we jumped into the nightmare that is Obamacare. Now people are being denied medical care on a regular basis.

Relax - rights aren't forced on you.
You also have the right not to exercise your right to free speech.
Likewise, if you have access to free medical care it's still your choice whether you take it up or not.

Really...no one was ever refused medical care before the ACA?

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't say rights were forced on me.

I said you don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

 

[idb]

I didn't say rights were forced on me.

I said you don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

You do if the people of the country decide that you do.

 

[dblack]

I didn't say rights were forced on me.

I said you don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

You do if the people of the country decide that you do.

No edict of "the people" can change the nature of reality. What you're talking has nothing to with rights. Instead, it's a new power of government. And powers of government are a Constitutional issue, not subject to the whim of simple majority rule. Our government was deliberately framed that way to prevent an ignorant populace from voting themselves "bread and circuses".

The purpose of government isn't to supply us with goodies. It's to protect our rights, which is why you nimrods are trying so hard pretend that the goodies are rights. But they're not. They're services that must be provided by others. And claiming you have a right to force others to provide services for you is, indeed, morally bizarre.

 

[idb]

I didn't say rights were forced on me.

I said you don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

You do if the people of the country decide that you do.

No edict of "the people" can change the nature of reality. What you're talking has nothing to with rights. Instead, it's a new power of government. And powers of government are a Constitutional issue, not subject to the whim of simple majority rule. Our government was deliberately framed that way to prevent an ignorant populace from voting themselves "bread and circuses".

The purpose of government isn't to supply us with goodies. It's to protect our rights, which is why you nimrods are trying so hard pretend that the goodies are rights. But they're not. They're services that must be provided by others. And claiming you have a right to force others to provide services for you is, indeed, morally bizarre.

No, reality is that 'rights' are granted to you.
Racial equality is a right that has been granted by the people (via the government)...it wasn't always so.

 

[dblack]

I didn't say rights were forced on me.

I said you don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

You do if the people of the country decide that you do.

No edict of "the people" can change the nature of reality. What you're talking has nothing to with rights. Instead, it's a new power of government. And powers of government are a Constitutional issue, not subject to the whim of simple majority rule. Our government was deliberately framed that way to prevent an ignorant populace from voting themselves "bread and circuses".

The purpose of government isn't to supply us with goodies. It's to protect our rights, which is why you nimrods are trying so hard pretend that the goodies are rights. But they're not. They're services that must be provided by others. And claiming you have a right to force others to provide services for you is, indeed, morally bizarre.

No, reality is that 'rights' are granted to you.
Racial equality is a right that has been granted by the people (via the government)...it wasn't always so.

Yes, and outside the legitimate reinforcement of equal protection, it's equally incoherent and contradictory.

Listen, you're decidedly impervious to explanations of the difference between a right and a service, so I won't bother with that - but let me ask you, how far would you take this "rights by majority decree" notion? If we could pass a law declaring that "good sex" was a right that government must ensure, would that make sense to you as well? How would you propose they implement it? A 'draft' perhaps?

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't say rights were forced on me.

I said you don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

You do if the people of the country decide that you do.

Er..no, you just said rights weren't being forced on me. Make up your mind, scum.

Meanwhile, in the real world..I said YOU don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

 

[idb]

I didn't say rights were forced on me.

I said you don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

You do if the people of the country decide that you do.

No edict of "the people" can change the nature of reality. What you're talking has nothing to with rights. Instead, it's a new power of government. And powers of government are a Constitutional issue, not subject to the whim of simple majority rule. Our government was deliberately framed that way to prevent an ignorant populace from voting themselves "bread and circuses".

The purpose of government isn't to supply us with goodies. It's to protect our rights, which is why you nimrods are trying so hard pretend that the goodies are rights. But they're not. They're services that must be provided by others. And claiming you have a right to force others to provide services for you is, indeed, morally bizarre.

No, reality is that 'rights' are granted to you.
Racial equality is a right that has been granted by the people (via the government)...it wasn't always so.

Yes, and outside the legitimate reinforcement of equal protection, it's equally incoherent and contradictory.

Listen, you're decidedly impervious to explanations of the difference between a right and a service, so I won't bother with that - but let me ask you, how far would you take this "rights by majority decree" notion? If we could pass a law declaring that "good sex" was a right that government must ensure, would that make sense to you as well? How would you propose they implement it? A 'draft' perhaps?

You're right...we're clearly not going to agree.
I can see no reason why a service can't be granted as a right - how about the right to an attorney...surely that's a service provided as a right?

I can't propose how a good sex right would be granted because I have no intention of proposing such a thing.
Carrying on an argument to an absurdity is a lost argument.

 

[idb]

I didn't say rights were forced on me.

I said you don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

You do if the people of the country decide that you do.

Er..no, you just said rights weren't being forced on me. Make up your mind, scum.

Meanwhile, in the real world..I said YOU don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

Scum?!

 

[georgephillip]

Judges do not provide individual services to people for particular ailments.
They act to preserve the order of our land and our government.

Physicians do not. We do not have to have physicians in order to preserve the order of our nation. We do not have to be healthy in order to ensure that our freedom and liberty is preserved.

Judges, police officers, firemen, teachers, and doctors all provide services that protect the health of Americans individually and collectively. If you believe "We the People" are the sovereign authority in this country, isn't the health of the people necessary for the health of the state?

 

[idb]

I didn't say rights were forced on me.

I said you don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

You do if the people of the country decide that you do.

Er..no, you just said rights weren't being forced on me. Make up your mind, scum.

Meanwhile, in the real world..I said YOU don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

You really are as dumb as a bag of spanners.
Being granted a right doesn't make it mandatory...sheesh!
I have a right to have children...it doesn't mean I have to!

 

[dblack]

I didn't say rights were forced on me.

I said you don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

You do if the people of the country decide that you do.

No edict of "the people" can change the nature of reality. What you're talking has nothing to with rights. Instead, it's a new power of government. And powers of government are a Constitutional issue, not subject to the whim of simple majority rule. Our government was deliberately framed that way to prevent an ignorant populace from voting themselves "bread and circuses".

The purpose of government isn't to supply us with goodies. It's to protect our rights, which is why you nimrods are trying so hard pretend that the goodies are rights. But they're not. They're services that must be provided by others. And claiming you have a right to force others to provide services for you is, indeed, morally bizarre.

No, reality is that 'rights' are granted to you.
Racial equality is a right that has been granted by the people (via the government)...it wasn't always so.

Yes, and outside the legitimate reinforcement of equal protection, it's equally incoherent and contradictory.

Listen, you're decidedly impervious to explanations of the difference between a right and a service, so I won't bother with that - but let me ask you, how far would you take this "rights by majority decree" notion? If we could pass a law declaring that "good sex" was a right that government must ensure, would that make sense to you as well? How would you propose they implement it? A 'draft' perhaps?

You're right...we're clearly not going to agree.
I can see no reason why a service can't be granted as a right - how about the right to an attorney...surely that's a service provided as a right?

No, it's not. The right in question is the right to due process. You have no "right" to the services of an attorney, but if the state wants to prosecute you, and potentially take away you real rights, they must ensure you have adequate legal advice.

I can't propose how a good sex right would be granted because I have no intention of proposing such a thing.
Carrying on an argument to an absurdity is a lost argument.

Extending the basic principles of a position to see if they many any sense when applied generally is a good test of the basic concepts involved. I'm not surprised you don't want to go there.