Election Thread 2008 MAKE SURE YOU VOTE

[Space Pirate Roberts]

that is a bit of a stretch. You have the right for other people to work so you can live? You have a RIGHT to that?

Sure, I think we should have it on some level because I feel it is more productive than it NOT being there. But I'm not going to pretend like I have the right to my neighbors shit, even if I need it or might die.

The same argument makes exactly as much sense against a publicly funded police force, yet no one questions our right to that.

[Fe 26]

Why is it we're pretty much the only western nation without some form of Universal Health Care then? There's no reason people should not be able to afford to go to the doctor when they get sick.

I imagine it is deep rooted in the impact being a nation that strongly values individuality has on a persons outlook on life.

Just because other nations do something is not a sound argument for something being a human right. That just means that it can be made to work and it might be a good idea.

I would suport the idea personally, that we need it, but I will not suport the idea that anyone has a right to it. That makes as much since as saying that people have a right to a car so they can drive and go to work, or a laptop so they participate to the fullest in school. Those things are good and make a person's life more fulfilling and easy, but is it a right? No.

[SpoDaddy]

Why is it we're pretty much the only western nation without some form of Universal Health Care then?

It's because we're a country founded on individual liberties. We're essentially the only western nation with a constitutionally defined separation of church and state; I suppose we should ditch that too so we can fit in better with Europe?

There's no reason people should not be able to afford to go to the doctor when they get sick.

You're arguing that under no circumstances should a person be denied a service just because they can't pay for that service. By your logic the government should have a Universal Food Program and mail me steaks and water every week because I have the right to eat. The government should also mail me clothes regularly because I have the right to not be naked. The government should also pay my college tuition because I have the right to an education. The government should give me bodyguards and guns because I have the right to be safe. The government should give me a car because I have the right to earn a living and I need a car to get to work. The government should give me an Xbox 360 if mine gets another RROD because I have the right to play Halo with my friends. Etc.

[bbobb]

That makes as much since as saying that people have a right to a car so they can drive and go to work, or a laptop so they participate to the fullest in school. Those things are good and make a person's life more fulfilling and easy, but is it a right? No.

Fuck, I said I'd drop it, but I have to reply to that.

The difference is you do not NEED a car, nor do you NEED a laptop.

You do NEED health care. Just like you NEED Police, and you NEED Firefighters, and so on. It's not about making life more fulfilling and easy, it's about something that people need to live.

[bbobb]

It's because we're a country founded on individual liberties. We're essentially the only western nation with a constitutionally defined separation of church and state; I suppose we should ditch that too so we can fit in better with Europe?

Well most European nations seem to do a better job with that separation of church and state then we do.

You're arguing that under no circumstances should a person be denied a service just because they can't pay for that service. By your logic the government should have a Universal Food Program and mail me steaks and water every week because I have the right to eat. The government should also mail me clothes regularly because I have the right to not be naked. The government should also pay my college tuition because I have the right to an education. The government should give me bodyguards and guns because I have the right to be safe. The government should give me a car because I have the right to earn a living and I need a car to get to work. The government should give me an Xbox 360 if mine gets another RROD because I have the right to play Halo with my friends. Etc.

See above.

Also the government pays for your public school because you do have a right to an education. The government pays for you bodyguards in the police because you do have a right to protection. So you've been living with "socialism" for a while now.

Edit: Fuck, enough... this argument retreads the same shit every time.

[Fe 26]

The same argument makes exactly as much sense against a publicly funded police force, yet no one questions our right to that.

anyone that says you have a right to police protection is an idiot. It is one of the primary jobs of the government that was agreed upon at this nations founding, BUT it isn't a right.

Which touches on a key difference between the two. Police protection is something that takes resources from everyone to protect everyone and is something that was agreed upon at the start of our nation. National health care is a relatively newer idea that takes resources from one group and gives it to another.

More headway would be made if people would put more work convincing those who "have" that a healthy society is good for them, and less into trying to convince them that the poor have a right to their shit.

[Fe 26]

Fuck, I said I'd drop it, but I have to reply to that.

The difference is you do not NEED a car, nor do you NEED a laptop.

You do NEED health care. Just like you NEED Police, and you NEED Firefighters, and so on. It's not about making life more fulfilling and easy, it's about something that people need to live.

well, that is really the crux of this isn't it? Not all Americans believe that your life is more important than their right to do what they want with what they have.

[SpoDaddy]

Spending tax dollars for collectivist concepts like national security, public schools, highways, etc. is technically socialist, too but they're considered necessary in capitalist countries and so they don't get the stigma of that label. The world outside the US doesn't use the term "socialized health care" because it's like saying "socialized mail system "or "socialized police force".

The difference is that we can't reasonably consider a privatized military, police force, highway system, etc. because we'd be handing over the security of the state to an organization not controlled by the state (rendering our government impotent). Public education does fall under the same category as socialized health care, which is why a public school education is generally inferior to a private school education and why the public schools are a giant money sink. The health care system in America needs major reform but the main issue is cost, and privatized systems will always be more cost-effective than government-run systems.

[SpoDaddy]

Well most European nations seem to do a better job with that separation of church and state then we do.

England has a national church and a monarchy that rules by divine right. Many of the smaller European nations have similar national churches and are subservient to England in the EU anyway. But George Bush loves Jesus so I guess we're a theocracy.

[Fe 26]

Also the government pays for your public school because you do have a right to an education. The government pays for you bodyguards in the police because you do have a right to protection. So you've been living with "socialism" for a while now.

does it pay for those things because they are rights, or do they pay for them because they are things that are universally good for society and are of such a complicated nature that the average individual can not obtain them on his/her own adequately?

bbobb, do you know what the word "right" means?