And it's what the Obama administration is doing with Health Care - forcing someone to purchase something from a private party against his will.
Yep. They have not the authority to force commerce upon private citizens.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And it's what the Obama administration is doing with Health Care - forcing someone to purchase something from a private party against his will.
And it's what the Obama administration is doing with Health Care - forcing someone to purchase something from a private party against his will.
That's not "collectivism". If anything that's "Cartel-ism", if that's even a word.
But it's not even that.
It's protecting the majority of the public from having to pay for insurance dead-beats when they try to make other people pay for their hospital stays.
There are of course 2 ways to go about that. We could make it so hospitals have the legal ability to throw those people out on their ass when they show up at a hospital and let them die. Not a very compassionate choice, that.
Choice constrained is force. Taking away my choices before I get a chance to make them is no different than telling me what to do.
Queue Bfgrn to come in and tell you that laws against murder restrain your choice too, as if that's somehow a valid point in context.
So what, "collectivism" only deals with constraints on businesses and economics, not with morality?
That is such a right-wing point of view.
The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism, which deals with governmental control over moral issues, like murder, in addition to economic issues.
So yes, laws against murder would in fact "restrain your choice", but would protect the rights of others, just like laws against excessive corporate power restrain the choices of corporations, but protect the rights of others.
Choice constrained is force. Taking away my choices before I get a chance to make them is no different than telling me what to do.
Queue Bfgrn to come in and tell you that laws against murder restrain your choice too, as if that's somehow a valid point in context.
So what, "collectivism" only deals with constraints on businesses and economics, not with morality?
That is such a right-wing point of view.
The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism, which deals with governmental control over moral issues, like murder, in addition to economic issues.
So yes, laws against murder would in fact "restrain your choice", but would protect the rights of others, just like laws against excessive corporate power restrain the choices of corporations, but protect the rights of others.
Queue Bfgrn to come in and tell you that laws against murder restrain your choice too, as if that's somehow a valid point in context.
So what, "collectivism" only deals with constraints on businesses and economics, not with morality?
That is such a right-wing point of view.
The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism, which deals with governmental control over moral issues, like murder, in addition to economic issues.
So yes, laws against murder would in fact "restrain your choice", but would protect the rights of others, just like laws against excessive corporate power restrain the choices of corporations, but protect the rights of others.
Your ability to twist, erroneously infer, and construct strawmen from nothing rivals that of Ravi.
And that's saying something.
And it's what the Obama administration is doing with Health Care - forcing someone to purchase something from a private party against his will.
That's not "collectivism". If anything that's "Cartel-ism", if that's even a word.
But it's not even that.
It's protecting the majority of the public from having to pay for insurance dead-beats when they try to make other people pay for their hospital stays.
There are of course 2 ways to go about that. We could make it so hospitals have the legal ability to throw those people out on their ass when they show up at a hospital and let them die. Not a very compassionate choice, that.
It is INDEED the very essence of collectivism. The pretext for forcing people to buy something they don't want is based upon the needs of and the costs to the collective.
case closed. You can all go home now.To each according to their needs...etc...
case closed. You can all go home now.To each according to their needs...etc...
The T-douche makes a speech.
So what, "collectivism" only deals with constraints on businesses and economics, not with morality?
That is such a right-wing point of view.
The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism, which deals with governmental control over moral issues, like murder, in addition to economic issues.
So yes, laws against murder would in fact "restrain your choice", but would protect the rights of others, just like laws against excessive corporate power restrain the choices of corporations, but protect the rights of others.
Your ability to twist, erroneously infer, and construct strawmen from nothing rivals that of Ravi.
And that's saying something.
what did you do with mal? does his sock need darning?
case closed. You can all go home now.To each according to their needs...etc...
The T-douche makes a speech.
Whatsamatta Union Thug? Can't take the heat?
here's a few lines you can sing with your new band:
Your ability to twist, erroneously infer, and construct strawmen from nothing rivals that of Ravi.
And that's saying something.
what did you do with mal? does his sock need darning?
You tell me.
Queue Bfgrn to come in and tell you that laws against murder restrain your choice too, as if that's somehow a valid point in context.
So what, "collectivism" only deals with constraints on businesses and economics, not with morality?
That is such a right-wing point of view.
The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism, which deals with governmental control over moral issues, like murder, in addition to economic issues.
So yes, laws against murder would in fact "restrain your choice", but would protect the rights of others, just like laws against excessive corporate power restrain the choices of corporations, but protect the rights of others.
If this is true: "The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism..." the argument that the choice is between Collectivism and Libertarianism is a Right Wing Lunacy argument masquerading as traditional liberalism.
societal moral values are collectivist. personal morality, which is foreign in America today is a horse of a different color.
That's not "collectivism". If anything that's "Cartel-ism", if that's even a word.
But it's not even that.
It's protecting the majority of the public from having to pay for insurance dead-beats when they try to make other people pay for their hospital stays.
There are of course 2 ways to go about that. We could make it so hospitals have the legal ability to throw those people out on their ass when they show up at a hospital and let them die. Not a very compassionate choice, that.
It is INDEED the very essence of collectivism. The pretext for forcing people to buy something they don't want is based upon the needs of and the costs to the collective.
To each according to their needs...etc...
So what, "collectivism" only deals with constraints on businesses and economics, not with morality?
That is such a right-wing point of view.
The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism, which deals with governmental control over moral issues, like murder, in addition to economic issues.
So yes, laws against murder would in fact "restrain your choice", but would protect the rights of others, just like laws against excessive corporate power restrain the choices of corporations, but protect the rights of others.
If this is true: "The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism..." the argument that the choice is between Collectivism and Libertarianism is a Right Wing Lunacy argument masquerading as traditional liberalism.
societal moral values are collectivist. personal morality, which is foreign in America today is a horse of a different color.
you judge a horse by it's color?
It is INDEED the very essence of collectivism. The pretext for forcing people to buy something they don't want is based upon the needs of and the costs to the collective.
To each according to their needs...etc...
and 'common property'
and handouts- free fish and bread for no reason other than they were in need
truly, only a truly evil statist tyrant progressive nazi communist sympathizer who hates everything this good Christian nation stands for could ever support such things
Can you cite the post where either of us ever supported Staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhlin?Can either of you Stalinist nutsacks point out the Bible chapter and verse, which declared Caesar needed to shake down the rustics to help the sainted pooooooor?
I'll give a hint: There ain't one.
Can either of you Stalinist nutsacks point out the Bible chapter and verse, which declared Caesar needed to shake down the rustics to help the sainted pooooooor?
I'll give a hint: There ain't one.