Do You LOVE Fascism?

[Easy90]

Fascism has become a pejorative term (it wasn't always, and to many, is still not) because it's associated with the Italian dictator who coined it...Benito Mussolini. The most concise definition of fascism is: The collaboration of government and private industry into a cooperative venture. Hillary Clinton's plan to nationalize the private health care system in America is a classic example of fascism. It is therefore quite correct and reasonable to observe that she advocates fascism. A person who advocates fascism is properly called a "fascist." People who support fascists are properly termed, fascists.

[maten149]

This is just plain silly. Look at the european democracies which have nationalised health care systems which work just about dandy. Are you calling these nations 'fascist' regimes ? If so, you should look around and take a fresh look at the world.

Lets look at your definition of fascism, I don't know where you got it from. Anyway here's wikipedias definition:

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes."

According to this definition. One might even reason that the current government is working in a fascist mode.

The term you are looking for, to describe Hillary Clinton's plan is: "Social Democracy"

Read about it yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Best regards,
Mattias

[4Reaganomics]

This is just plain silly. Look at the european democracies which have nationalised health care systems which work just about dandy. Are you calling these nations 'fascist' regimes ? If so, you should look around and take a fresh look at the world.

Lets look at your definition of fascism, I don't know where you got it from. Anyway here's wikipedias definition:

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes."

According to this definition. One might even reason that the current government is working in a fascist mode.

The term you are looking for, to describe Hillary Clinton's plan is: "Social Democracy"

Read about it yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Best regards,
Mattias


Best overall cancer survival rates are in which country

hmmmmm.....

I think the good ole' USA. When government takes over healthcare, medical innovation and accomplishment declines.

Right now the producers among us have fantastic healthcare

So do we really want to give up our great private healthcare and great private hospitals for government doctors and government lines at government mandated locations.

84 percent of us have fantastic healthcare, and we are going to give that up so that every single one of us has shitty government operated healthcare. We are going to sell our souls and take gov't operated healthcare because 16 percent of people do not want to pay or can't produce

Healthcare is not a right, it is something we hope to earn - mitt

[PatrickHenry]

Who cares about healthcare...or Hillary?

Let's talk about fascism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, socialization, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism

Under such a definition, it could be said that the US has some tendencies to fascism in the modern era.

I would characterize the US currently as having the attributes of patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, and collectivism. There could be some cogent arguments made that our system doesn't allow for any innovations to politics or economics...and I would think that shows opposition to political and economic liberalism.

It is a fact that there is a widespread government commitment to secrecy and the use of police in roles that suppress individual freedom.

The US is certaily part way to fascism, but not because Hillary wants universal health care.

That's a laughable premise.

[maten149]

Right now the producers among us have fantastic healthcare


What about those who are not producers? Those who are
perhaps sick, unable to get at job. Poor?


So do we really want to give up our great private healthcare and great private hospitals for government doctors and government lines at government mandated locations.

84 percent of us have fantastic healthcare, and we are going to give that up so that every single one of us has shitty government operated healthcare. We are going to sell our souls and take gov't operated healthcare because 16 percent of people do not want to pay or can't produce


That's a lot of propaganda somebody made you swallow. I looked
up the figures on Cancer at CDC's homepage. And - while having
the best cancer survival rate, it is not significantly better than most
western european countries. There are other areas where the average
health care drops very low. Birth survival figures are lower than
some undeveloped countries and so on.
But please let not argue about this.



Healthcare is not a right, it is something we hope to earn - mitt


I really don't understand this line of reasoning - from what you say
, a humans right to care is valued directly by what he produces. And those who doesn't produce, are not worth helping?
What happened to christian moral values and compassion?

Let me ask you two questions in order for me to understand
your point of view. How would you reason in the
following cases:

1) If your brother or sister fell Ill, lost his/her job and got very sick.
Assuming that she had no proper ensurance and could not
affort healthcare. Would you really just say: "Tough luck - survival
of the fittest".

2) Assuming you yourself got sick, and your ensurance company
would not pay for your bills due to some item in your history.
You pay the necessary bills yourself, since
you have the money, but then suddenly you're out of money.
Your chemo is not finished. Would you still hold the same
line of reasoning?

Regards,
Mattias

[The Bacon Guy]

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.
UHC is an authoritarian system which considers the property rights of the individual to be subordinate to the health of society as a whole.

Seems like it fits the deinition of fascism rather neatly.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Patrick said:
It is a fact that there is a widespread government commitment to secrecy and the use of police in roles that suppress individual freedom.

While I partially agree, do you not see that legislation can play a critical role to removing those rights of individuals freedom also?

A mandate to have healthcare, is a denial of the choice to not have healthcare.
That is a critical change that is NOT always beneficial, thereby, not in the best intrests of the individuals who make up the collective society.

Patrick said:
The US is certaily part way to fascism, but not because Hillary wants universal health care.

That's a laughable premise.

No, actually I don't believe it is. It is but one small change, atop a pile of other small changes which set legislative precedent, that constitute a timeline of treason by the bi-partisan monopoly on government to reduce and eventually extinguish the idea of individual liberty, and individual rights. Mandatory healthcare is essential to establishing the philosophy AGAINST self-ownership, since it removes the choice of NOT maintaining health if that is ones intrests, and it often is.

Many may agree that it would be great to have access to healthcare when we deem it necessary, but what about when we DON'T individually deem it necessary, or actually deem it counter productive to our goals?

This sets the stage for government dictating what actions are "legal" and what actions are not "legal" based on the cost and damages it makes to society, since society is paying for the "risks" people are allowed to take.

It is a critical step in the move toward totalitarianism, fascism and authoritarian control.

Maten said:
What about those who are not producers?

They have natural collectives (friends and family) to lean on for their support.

Maten said:
Those who are perhaps sick, unable to get at job. Poor?

Again, they have natural collectives such as family and friends, or external charitable collectives such as public aid, non-profit aide programs to appeal to.

Their health and well being is not the right, nor the intrest of the state or federal system in the United States. We are all charged with our own responsibility for health and welfare, success or failure.

Maten said:
I really don't understand this line of reasoning - from what you say
, a humans right to care is valued directly by what he produces.

Not at all. I humans right to care is unquestionable, all humans have a right to ACCESS healthcare. The issue being discussed is whose responsibility it is to provide a MEANS for healthcare if access is already established.

Soicalists tend to lean toward the state, and/or federal government is responsible, as do democrats.
Libertarians, and some republicans tend to lean toward the individual, as they believe the individual is responsible for themselves regarding all of lifes decisions, not only health and welfare.

Socialists and often democrats, tend to overlook the intrests of the individual, in favor of the intrests of the collective. They tend to believe if the majority are kept happy, the collective(nation) will eventually be happy.
Libertarians and some republicans, tend to overlook the intrests of the collective, in favor of the intrests of the individual. (when rights are not in jeapordy) They tend to believe that if the individuals are all happy, the RESULT is a happy collective(nation).

This is an issue of individual ownership, responsibility and the facts regarding the difference between economic systems and ideals espoused by differing camps of thought.

Maten said:
And those who doesn't produce, are not worth helping?

No. Those who don't produce are "abnormal", and have natural collectives to help them in observing and exercising their rights to care and fulfillment. These natural collectives exist by instinct(family) and through manmade bonds(friends, colleagues and assoiciates).

Being abnormal is not a pejorative term in this sense, but a term of classification. It is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of humans are "productive" to their own agenda of health and welfare, but each ascribe it into their value system differently based on their own moral, ideological, philosophical propensities, as well as their own goals, dreams and aspirations, all of which are affected by their enviroment, time, upbringing, education, etc.

Maten said:
What happened to christian moral values and compassion?

I am no Christian, I am an agnostic, and the U.S. was never formed as a Christian nation in any sense so I don't see what role that plays in the debate other than an appeal to emotion, over factual content.... an appeal to sacrifice for altruism and unconditional love over reason, rationale.

Please tell me if you disagree, and why.

Maten said:
Let me ask you two questions in order for me to understand
your point of view. How would you reason in the
following cases:

1) If your brother or sister fell Ill, lost his/her job and got very sick.
Assuming that she had no proper ensurance and could not
affort healthcare. Would you really just say: "Tough luck - survival
of the fittest".

No. I would realize my burden to bear for the family collective intrests and goals, and selfishly, but rationally determine that my love and well wishes for my relative is in my best intrests. Knowing this, all members of the natural collective of family, would step forward to accept more of the burden put forth by one of their loved ones in dire need, by producing more, and offering more as personal charity based on selfish intrests. (my wanting to be able to spend more quality time with the one I LOVE, and I WANT TO SEE HAPPY.)

The state or federal government should play no role here, other than to regulate the market in the sense of ensuring both service and good providers as well as consumers are protected from fraud, coercion or theft. THAT ensures equal market access..... the means to make use of that access is the onus and burden of the individual.

Maten said:
2) Assuming you yourself got sick, and your ensurance company
would not pay for your bills due to some item in your history.
You pay the necessary bills yourself, since
you have the money, but then suddenly you're out of money.
Your chemo is not finished. Would you still hold the same
line of reasoning?

Yes, without question.

Currently I personally am going through a similar experience. I have a loved one who would benefit from 24hr managed care, but, can't afford that type of care. Because I love this person, and because I want their time in life to be as happy and pain-free as possible, I devote my time to filling the role of the managed care provider, at personal expense to myself. My life choices and ability to earn income are directly affected negatively by being able to do much less, having little to no free-time, and not being able to leave the premises often for any length of time.... BUT, my life is bettered because I get to be a part of helping someone I love very much live a happier, more comfortable and less stressful life which removes the aforementioned negative effects to my life choices and limited social or entertainment abilities.

I selfishly choose to suffer, so that one I love may live better, as is my right as an individual, and I feel is my burden based on the natural collective of family.

It is not the role of the state or fed, to steal daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, from the labor of citizens by claiming their earnings rewards with NO RIGHT to do so, to provide for the UNnatural collective that is the nations people, states people, etc.

This is a product of the people using the government as a cudgel, against their fellow countrymen, to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, which is not the role of goverment in the United States, thankfully, though the bi-partisan monopoly on power is doing all it can to seek the "paternal" role for government over the people.

I look forward to your replies.[hr]Bacon Guy said:
UHC is an authoritarian system which considers the property rights of the individual to be subordinate to the health of society as a whole.

Seems like it fits the deinition of fascism rather neatly.

I concur 100%. :thumbsup:

[maten149]

From my point of view UHC is a means to collectively assume responsibility of
the health and well-being of the society.

In order to label it as fascism, you would also need to have a _motive_ of oppression, and a goal to concentrate power to the leadership. I hardly see any risk of this
happening through a collective wellfare system, or have I misunderstood your point?

[The Bacon Guy]

From my point of view UHC is a means to collectively assume responsibility of
the health and well-being of the society.
Which would not necessarily be a bad thing provided it was done on a voluntary basis. As soon as you involve government force in your system it becomes authoritarian and therefore fascist in nature.

In order to label it as fascism, you would also need to have a _motive_ of oppression, and a goal to concentrate power to the leadership.
Not from the definition posted. All it requires is that the system is authoritarian and that it sacrifices individual rights and freedoms for the good of the state or of the collective.

[maten149]

First of all, besides replying to your post, lets define fascism in a non-wikipedia way. Websters perhaps? Five definitions are available, which specify in more or less detail, the mode of a fascist state. I'll take one which is shorter (the others describe the same thing, check for yourselves):

"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

Now, onto the important stuff:



While I partially agree, do you not see that legislation can play a critical role to removing those rights of individuals freedom also?

A mandate to have healthcare, is a denial of the choice to not have healthcare.


The first thing that pops into my mind when reading this line,
is "who would want to NOT have healthcare".

But the issue you are really addressing is whether any amount
of infringement of private property (money) is an intolerable
breach of integrity, limiting the freedom of the individual.
Of course there are widely accepted breaches already, like
tax funding the military and federal agencies et.cetera.

So, to maximize freedom. Would a state financed health care
system increase or decrease the freedom? From my point of
view, the people (15% of the population) which does not
have healthcare experience insecurity and a low possibility to enjoy the 'freedom' which is held in high regard. People who are insecure are not free.
They are at the mercy of an outside authoritarian system, at
mercy of what you describe as 'voluntary' forces. They will
not have the benefit of these mechanisms unless they submit
to the terms stipulated by these outside forces.

Those who can afford health insurance today and already
enjoy the freedom of healthcare, would hardly experience
an increase in the amount of money they need to spend. So
it is really a question of what freedom means.

If freedom means to be healthy and be able to express your
thoughts, I would not argue that a state financed health care
system would decrease freedom. It would increase it.

I look forward to your replies.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Maten said:
From my point of view UHC is a means to collectively assume responsibility of
the health and well-being of the society.

Correct, which in the U.S., the government has no right to do Constitutionally with respect to the Bill of Rights.

Maten said:
In order to label it as fascism, you would also need to have a _motive_ of oppression,

There is a mode of oppression, and a motive and historical track for its progressivism.

The mode of oppression is the THEFT of individual funds by government, which can't be directly audited or controlled or allocated by the individual, with or without their conscent.
The historical record of progressivism toward this point, is well documented in democratic party principle since about 1900, and greatly increased since 1933 with the Unconstitutional New Deal policy.

Maten said:
and a goal to concentrate power to the leadership. I hardly see any risk of this
happening through a collective wellfare system, or have I misunderstood your point?

How would a people who have their funds stolen from them, against their will, with no ability to audit, allocate or control those funds or the controller of those funds (government) ensure the systems efficiency? You can't. Even if you could, it would still equate to theft via the threat of force.(government force)

Go Fish said:
Wikipedia" Now THAT's laughable! Seriously, nobody with a brain would cite that puddle of wrongness, nor let one without a brain go unchallenged. It's like saying "Well, my uncles says...." because it may very well be your uncle writing the information.

Anything to add to the debate, or simply here to detract from it, derail it and insult those attempting to have one?!? :unreal:

[Buck Laser]

Maten said:
From my point of view UHC is a means to collectively assume responsibility of the health and well-being of the society.

Correct, which in the U.S., the government has no right to do Constitutionally with respect to the Bill of Rights.


Where is something like Universal Health Care specifically forbidden in the Bill of Rights?

[underdawg]

The definition of fascism seems more like the U.S. just after 9-11. The media, The administration, the big corporations all trying to use fear of terrorism to make citizens afraid of each other and to start to question each other's patriotism. To convince the citizens to voluntarily sacrifice freedom for a false sense of security. Hillary's health care plan does little to promote fascism compared to what the Bush administration has done already.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Maten said:
The first thing that pops into my mind when reading this line,
is "who would want to NOT have healthcare".

Those who don't seek to extend their lives one more day, those who seek to live as they do without regard to damaging health. Those dying who seek only to live comfortable, not necessarily "healthy". Those who are working to save every penny for something, and are in good health so they decide to allocate their healthcare savings to achieve a goal, and then later replace that money.

There are many reasons, a different one for every case practically, since all people are individuals, have different values, goals, aspirations and philosophies.

Maten said:
But the issue you are really addressing is whether any amount
of infringement of private property (money) is an intolerable
breach of integrity, limiting the freedom of the individual.

Indeed.

Maten said:
Of course there are widely accepted breaches already, like
tax funding the military and federal agencies et.cetera.

By "accepted" I assume you mean, existing without armed revolt, or "seemingly sanctioned" since there is no armed revolt?
There are many who disagree with and are lobbying against several things daily, but none have pushed to the point of violent revolt... yet. The publics tolerance for this "concept" is waning daily however.

Maten said:
So, to maximize freedom. Would a state financed health care
system increase or decrease the freedom?

Decrease.

Maten said:
From my point of
view, the people (15% of the population) which does not
have healthcare experience insecurity and a low possibility to enjoy the 'freedom' which is held in high regard. People who are insecure are not free.
They are at the mercy of an outside authoritarian system, at
mercy of what you describe as 'voluntary' forces. They will
not have the benefit of these mechanisms unless they submit
to the terms stipulated by these outside forces.

Those outside forces, as you call them, are not within their (the 15%'s) right to control. They have a right to control their own body, their own choices as well as manage their own health and welfare. Those terms are set by rational, objective means and methods, as opposed to irrational and subjective means, which often dictate the movement you seem to champion. How capitalism can be viewed as more authoritarian than socialism, or any other ism, is beyond me.

They have no right to enjoy freedom, they have a right to experience it, and make of it what THEY will.

Maten said:
Those who can afford health insurance today and already
enjoy the freedom of healthcare, would hardly experience
an increase in the amount of money they need to spend. So
it is really a question of what freedom means.

I disagree, and I speak from a position of having no job and no healthcare, though I had both before and chose this course of my own free will and my values.

The cost is always plead as "miniscule" when the bill is being pushed, but the reality is the cost is prohibitive to the entire systems economy, and the cost is being camoflaged. There are market forces at work that aren't being addressed, which must be addressed, in order to have an honest debate.

Right now, the healthcare market is dictated by business, since business is traditionally looked on as the provider of healthcare, and they have traditionally overseen very large accounts encompassing the care of very large groups of people. Over time, they have taken over the market (thanks to exuberant, and illogical regulation by government) and squeezed out the individual from a choice in the market to meet their own needs cost effectively. A large part of the problem is the government regulation of healthcare, but that is a debate all in itself.

Maten said:
If freedom means to be healthy and be able to express your
thoughts, I would not argue that a state financed health care
system would decrease freedom. It would increase it.

That is not how freedom is defined, but I can see why you would choose that description since it aides your argument, though rather irrationally.

Let me explain....

What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of VOLUNTARY action versus PHYSICAL COERCION or COMPULSION.

Freedom, in the political context, has only one meaning; the absence of physical coercion.

To mandate theft to provide for healthcare, that one MUST accept, is proof of physical coercion, based on the force the government wields against its citizens.[hr]Buck Laser said:
Where is something like Universal Health Care specifically forbidden in the Bill of Rights?

How would the forefathers, and those who ratified the Constitution after the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, specifically exclude something not yet invented?

They couldn't and they didn't.

They did however RECOGNIZE and ENUMERATE exclusively the rights of individuals, as well as prohibit and specifically exclude some auspice of authority from the Federal and State Governments.

This has to deal with both the constitutional longevity of the taxation, as well as the valid or viable arguments that necessitate a valid use of taxation, licensing and other income of the government.

Simply quoting the 16th amendment is not an argument, and many including myself are still today attempting to repeal such unjust acts, proven damaging to society as a whole.

“We believe--or we act as if we believed--that although an individual father cannot alienate the labor of his son, the aggregate body of fathers may alienate the labor of all their sons, of their posterity, in the aggregate, and oblige them to pay for all the enterprises, just or unjust, profitable or ruinous, into which our vices, our passions or our personal interests may lead us. But I trust that this proposition needs only to be looked at by an American to be seen in its true point of view, and that we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority.”
-Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:357

“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.”
-Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1820. FE 10:175

“No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong.”
-Walter Williams

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned: This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address; March 4, 1801

“You can't pay people for doing nothing without forcing others to do something for nothing.”
-J. Kesner Kahn


Its a matter of common sense which is often camoflaged with legal nonsense, and deviation of logic and rationality based on altruism and unconditional love, aka, Marxism, Communism, etc. or other similar appeals to emotion through denial.

[Elrathin]

I gotta laugh at this thread, first Hillary is a socialist, then she was a communist, and now conservatives are saying she is a fascist. Can you conservatives pick one and just stick to it please? LOL

[Osborn F. Enready]

Communism, socialism, fascism all have one similar thing which is the eradication of individual rights.

That is why so many confuse them with Hillary, Obama, McCain, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Sr......

They have a voting record which shows they have consistently voted against individual rights, through increasing unjust government auspice and authoritarian abilities.

People are starting to wake up, and educate themselves. It takes time to recognize which label is correct, if any.

[maten149]

Maten said:

Those who don't seek to extend their lives one more day, those who seek to live as they do without regard to damaging health. Those dying who seek only to live comfortable, not necessarily "healthy". Those who are working to save every penny for something, and are in good health so they decide to allocate their healthcare savings to achieve a goal, and then later replace that money.

There are many reasons, a different one for every case practically, since all people are individuals, have different values, goals, aspirations and philosophies.


The reasons you give. Such as "Those who does not want to live et.cetera" sound very artificial. You must be talking about a very very small group of people.
Perhaps those who want to save every penny might be interested. Until the day they get sick.


Maten said:
From my point of
view, the people (15% of the population) which does not
have healthcare experience insecurity and a low possibility to enjoy the 'freedom' which is held in high regard. People who are insecure are not free.
They are at the mercy of an outside authoritarian system, at
mercy of what you describe as 'voluntary' forces. They will
not have the benefit of these mechanisms unless they submit
to the terms stipulated by these outside forces.

Those outside forces, as you call them, are not within their (the 15%'s) right to control. They have a right to control their own body, their own choices as well as manage their own health and welfare. Those terms are set by rational, objective means and methods, as opposed to irrational and subjective means, which often dictate the movement you seem to champion. How capitalism can be viewed as more authoritarian than socialism, or any other ism, is beyond me.


I am not speaking about physical or direct authoritarian rule
as in fascism, but the effect of being at the 'mercy' of forces
which they (according to you) are in 'no right to control'. Such
forces lead to submission and consequently conformism in order
to get whatever scraps someone is leaving to them.
In a sense, they are not free (safe, and free to express
their mind. They are legally free to do so. But using that freedom
may cost them whatever security they have attained)


They have no right to enjoy freedom, they have a right to experience it, and make of it what THEY will.


Can you elaborate. In which way does 'no right to enjoy freedom' _not_ mean they have no right to experience it?


Maten said:
Those who can afford health insurance today and already
enjoy the freedom of healthcare, would hardly experience
an increase in the amount of money they need to spend. So
it is really a question of what freedom means.

I disagree, and I speak from a position of having no job and no healthcare, though I had both before and chose this course of my own free will and my values.


If you were diagnosed with cancer. How would you handle
this situation. You would perhaps loan money from your
friends. Receive support from your family. (If you are lucky to
have friends/family which can provide this support). This way
you will be indebted to those who lends the support.
Assuming you survive, you will be in debt. Being in debt will
by no means increase your personal freedom. If you get a
job, you would need that income very much in order to pay
off your debts. You would be less inclined to protest against
injustices at your job. You would probably defer your right
to freedom of speach in order to save yourself from being
fired... so on and so on...



Maten said:
If freedom means to be healthy and be able to express your
thoughts, I would not argue that a state financed health care
system would decrease freedom. It would increase it.

That is not how freedom is defined, but I can see why you would choose that description since it aides your argument, though rather irrationally.

Let me explain....

What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of VOLUNTARY action versus PHYSICAL COERCION or COMPULSION.

Freedom, in the political context, has only one meaning; the absence of physical coercion.

To mandate theft to provide for healthcare, that one MUST accept, is proof of physical coercion, based on the force the government wields against its citizens.


I already assume that freedom from physical coercion and slavery is in place - arguing about the basic freedom as
stipulated by the law is not the point here. I'm talking more
about the day-to-day experience of freedom.
Freedom of thought and action. The sensation of being free.

/Mattias

[Osborn F. Enready]

Maten said:
The reasons you give. Such as "Those who does not want to live et.cetera" sound very artificial.

Aritificial? You deny that some choose death over life, and make a conscience choice to do so after rational consideration?

Or, do you deny that individuals have that right to choose life or death at all?

Maten said:
You must be talking about a very very small group of people.

Size of the group is of no matter regarding U.S. law, as, no majority may enslave no minority based solely on the wants of a majority according to individual rights.

Maten said:
Perhaps those who want to save every penny might be interested. Until the day they get sick.

The day they get sick, they will have to make another choice.... and that choice is only theirs to make.

Regardless, with every choice comes a consequence, its a matter of cause and effect. When an individual makes a choice to delay providing for healthcare, and then are struck with illness where healthcare could have helped, that is their consequence for making the choice they have. Their choice is the cause, the resulting effect, is the natural result of their predicament. The burden is theirs to bear, and it is a necessary and obvious cost of true liberty.

Maten said:
I am not speaking about physical or direct authoritarian rule
as in fascism, but the effect of being at the 'mercy' of forces
which they (according to you) are in 'no right to control'. Such
forces lead to submission and consequently conformism in order
to get whatever scraps someone is leaving to them.

Yes, this can happen in a nation where individual rights are respected, as is the right to pursue happiness.

Freedom is not free! The social safety net, as designed by Roosevelt and his cronies the bankers, in the New Deal, is a scham based on the idea of having total freedom from consequence of your own actions, and the coming result which we are seeing now, is a clamp down on those charged with paying for those logical consequences, through clamping down on how you can affect the outcome... in essence, removing your voice, your say, your choice.

Maten said:
In a sense, they are not free (safe, and free to express
their mind. They are legally free to do so. But using that freedom
may cost them whatever security they have attained)

They are not free in the "Kantian" sense, but nothing that lives IS free in the Kantian sense, and never will be. It is beyond their means to control, regardless of what mechanism is put in place. Why? Because human nature is not perfect, and power and money usually corrupt those of weak will if the opprotunity arises with reasonable risk. There are many humans of weak will by human nature, so, it is safe to say there will be weakness to corruption as long as the human condition exists. The problem is, socialism, fascism, communism all fail to address this issue, nor do they think checks and balances on this tendency are necessary. Capitalism attempted to address the issue, but fell short in the beginning of preventing it, and those who enjoyed the initial freedom, became apathetic by the freedom itself, they felt a false sense of security. They believed the government was working in their best intrest, and after a time, stopped checking to verify that stance, adequately.

Capitalism attempts to address this, and does, as long as people are willing to BEAR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR CHOICES. People, naturally, instinctively choose to do things which require the least cost, be the cost personal sacrifice, money, time, effort, labor, etc.....

This is an attempt to shift responsibility, yet nobody clearly understands the cost of this trade. The cost is the ownership of ones own body, and the RIGHT to say what is done with that body as an individual.

MAten said:
Can you elaborate. In which way does 'no right to enjoy freedom' _not_ mean they have no right to experience it?

Sure, I think these two quotes sum the entire concept very accurately....

“It is my right to be uncommon...if I can; I seek opportunity...not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stole calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud, and unafraid; to think and act for myself; enjoy the benefits of my creations and to face the world boldly and say, This I have done, and this is what it means to be an American.”
-Dean Alfrange

“To be governed is to be watched, inspected, directed, indoctrinated, numbered, estimated, regulated, commanded, controlled, law-driven, preached at, spied upon, censured, checked, valued, enrolled, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be, at every operation and at every transaction, taxed, stamped, registered, numbered, counted, noted, measured, assessed, authorized, licensed, admonished, prevented, forbidden, corrected, reformed, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, fleeced, drilled, extorted from, exploited, monopolized, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at slightest resistance and first word of complaint, to be sacrificed, betrayed, harassed, repressed, disarmed, hunted down, clubbed, abused, fined, sold, and, to crown it all, to be outraged, ridiculed, mocked, derided, dishonored. THAT is government; that is its justice, that's its morality.”
-Pierre-Joseph Proudhon


Maten said:
If you were diagnosed with cancer. How would you handle
this situation. You would perhaps loan money from your
friends. Receive support from your family. (If you are lucky to
have friends/family which can provide this support). This way
you will be indebted to those who lends the support.

Do you somehow think this indebtedness is "unjust"? If so why?
Do you deny that people who love each other, such as family, are willing to sacrifice some of their own enjoyment, to assure they themselves are taken care of?

Maten said:
Assuming you survive, you will be in debt. Being in debt will
by no means increase your personal freedom.

As I said, freedom is not free. Animals in the wild, many often label as "free" and "natural". What do you see when you examine the cost of their freedom? You see the survival of the fittest, which is the very thing many decry as morally unjust.

Capitalism, coupled with a limited central government and fairly independent state governments provide the ultimate compromise between true survival of the fittest, but enough security to foster investment, savings and spending.

The ultimate liberty is that which must only be protected on the basis of reason, because force is not valued as highly as reason. The ultimate danger to that concept is non-reason, denial of what exists and what does not, and the fear of accepting responsibility for ones own existence through rationale, reasoned volitional choice.

MAten said:
If you get a
job, you would need that income very much in order to pay
off your debts. You would be less inclined to protest against
injustices at your job. You would probably defer your right
to freedom of speach in order to save yourself from being
fired... so on and so on...

That is a lot of speculation, but I will still address it.

Yes, you would need to use a portion of your income for accrued debt, as well as to live in the present, and plan for your future. That means your past decision to avoid saving for healthcare would be an immediate learning experience, and would hopefully effect your next choice regarding the issue. However, in a capitalist system with full respect to individual rights, and a free market, you would be able to barter and make arrangements with those to whom you owe money, so that all parties can reach a mutually beneficial outcome to the problems which affect each group differently. This provides for the maximum amount of freedom for all decision makers involved.

Also, the arguments about affecting the right to free speech, or protest injustice is rather a strawman argument. In a system where individual rights are respected and the government limited to directly intervene in business affairs and individual affairs, the only purpose of government is to enforce and protect those rights. You would still be able to exercise all rights, and all recourse legally for any infringement upon those rights.

Maten said:
I already assume that freedom from physical coercion and slavery is in place -

That is the exact type of assumption, and apathy that leads to its internal removal of protection, through coercion, lobbyist corruption of political decision makers, etc.

There is never a safe store of freedom or a guaranteed protection of liberty. Those that seek power and wealth, assault it daily in every courtroom where reason has allowed one to appear. (without reason, there is no court, only force)

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“Reason obeys itself; and ignorance does whatever is dictated to it.”
-Thomas Paine, Rights of Man ("Conclusion")

Maten said:
arguing about the basic freedom as
stipulated by the law is not the point here. I'm talking more
about the day-to-day experience of freedom.
Freedom of thought and action. The sensation of being free.

I talk about the political and economic reality of freedom, not some abstract subjective emotion or sensation. One is essential and tangible, the other is arbitrary and a state of emotional being that may or may not be a product of rational perception.

[maten149]

Maten said:
The reasons you give. Such as "Those who does not want to live et.cetera" sound very artificial.

Aritificial? You deny that some choose death over life, and make a conscience choice to do so after rational consideration?

Or, do you deny that individuals have that right to choose life or death at all?



I am not stating that people are to be forced to treatment. That
is a grave misinterpretation of what I said. What I meant was that
those who actually want, should be able to receive medical care,
regardless of their ability to pay for, or otherwise receive medical
insurance.


Maten said:
You must be talking about a very very small group of people.

Size of the group is of no matter regarding U.S. law, as, no majority may enslave no minority based solely on the wants of a majority according to individual rights.



We're not talking about enslavement here. We're talking about
removing the health injustice. Even those _with_ insurance are
finding it more and more difficult to use their ensurance, since it
is not in the interest of the insurance companies to pay for
medical care. One might think that a free market would lead to the
best insurance companies getting most customers. But the
insurance companies are just ... companies, with the primary purpose
of generating $ for their owners.


Maten said:
Perhaps those who want to save every penny might be interested. Until the day they get sick.

The day they get sick, they will have to make another choice.... and that choice is only theirs to make.

Regardless, with every choice comes a consequence, its a matter of cause and effect. When an individual makes a choice to delay providing for healthcare, and then are struck with illness where healthcare could have helped, that is their consequence for making the choice they have. Their choice is the cause, the resulting effect, is the natural result of their predicament. The burden is theirs to bear, and it is a necessary and obvious cost of true liberty.


I agree that this is the cost of having a comercially operated healthcare system. However is it worth having 15% of 300Million people suffering?


Maten said:
I am not speaking about physical or direct authoritarian rule
as in fascism, but the effect of being at the 'mercy' of forces
which they (according to you) are in 'no right to control'. Such
forces lead to submission and consequently conformism in order
to get whatever scraps someone is leaving to them.

Yes, this can happen in a nation where individual rights are respected, as is the right to pursue happiness.


When reality hits, in the end, the result is happines and health
for some, but I agree with you. Not all are capable of attaining
this under such a system.


Maten said:
In a sense, they are not free (safe, and free to express
their mind. They are legally free to do so. But using that freedom
may cost them whatever security they have attained)

They are not free in the "Kantian" sense, but nothing that lives IS free in the Kantian sense, and never will be. It is beyond their means to control, regardless of what mechanism is put in place. Why? Because human nature is not perfect, and power and money usually corrupt those of weak will if the opprotunity arises with reasonable risk.


But why just resign with a shrug. Isn't a sense of freedom and
freedom from anxiety (among other things) worth fighting for?
Having freedom from physical coercion and freedom of speach
is a required first step, but why stop there?
One could at least try some other options. Such as increasing
solidarity through public healthcare?
Many western democracies have these kind of systems, and
they seem to work pretty well.



There are many humans of weak will by human nature, so, it is safe to say there will be weakness to corruption as long as the human condition exists. The problem is, socialism, fascism, communism all fail to address this issue, nor do they think checks and balances on this tendency are necessary. Capitalism attempted to address the issue, but fell short in the beginning of preventing it, and those who enjoyed the initial freedom, became apathetic by the freedom itself, they felt a false sense of security. They believed the government was working in their best intrest, and after a time, stopped checking to verify that stance, adequately.


Capitalism (in its different forms) have proven to be a good way
of ensuring basic freedom. BUT, raw capitalism, does not
- in my opinion - lead to further human freedom. The system
serves itself, not human interests. I think it is naive to think that
market forces alone are sufficient to ensure the well-being of
the people that are driving the system. I think the 15% that are
outside the system proves this point. They are not useful to the
system, and there's no one there to protect them.


Capitalism attempts to address this, and does, as long as people are willing to BEAR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR CHOICES. People, naturally, instinctively choose to do things which require the least cost, be the cost personal sacrifice, money, time, effort, labor, etc.....

This is an attempt to shift responsibility, yet nobody clearly understands the cost of this trade. The cost is the ownership of ones own body, and the RIGHT to say what is done with that body as an individual.

I assume you speak figuratively. Healthcare should not be mandatory,
thats not what I mean. I merely state that it should be readily available
for everybody.



MAten said:
Can you elaborate. In which way does 'no right to enjoy freedom' _not_ mean they have no right to experience it?

Sure, I think these two quotes sum the entire concept very accurately....



“To be governed is to be watched, inspected, directed, indoctrinated, numbered, estimated, regulated, commanded, controlled, law-driven, preached at, spied upon, censured, checked, valued, enrolled, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be, at every operation and at every transaction, taxed, stamped, registered, numbered, counted, noted, measured, assessed, authorized, licensed, admonished, prevented, forbidden, corrected, reformed, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility ....
[/quote]

... apart from the 'taxed' which would be included in a government
controlled healthcare system. ... do you really believe that
the other items on the list is being addressed properly by the
current system?





Maten said:
If you were diagnosed with cancer. How would you handle
this situation. You would perhaps loan money from your
friends. Receive support from your family. (If you are lucky to
have friends/family which can provide this support). This way
you will be indebted to those who lends the support.

Do you somehow think this indebtedness is "unjust"? If so why?
Do you deny that people who love each other, such as family, are willing to sacrifice some of their own enjoyment, to assure they themselves are taken care of?

I think man operates at his highest level of freedom if not indebted,
no matter to whom or what.
Of course I do not deny that love and sacrifice is a natural reaction
between family and friends. I do not, however, think that it is
strong enough to provide for those who are worse off. (15%)


Maten said:
Assuming you survive, you will be in debt. Being in debt will
by no means increase your personal freedom.

As I said, freedom is not free. Animals in the wild, many often label as "free" and "natural". What do you see when you examine the cost of their freedom? You see the survival of the fittest, which is the very thing many decry as morally unjust.

Survival of the fittest takes on a different meaning when applying
to humans.
Compassion and solidarity is also a benificial factor if we are to
venture into the realm of darwinism. People are social beings,
and empathy is innate. But I think that empathy and solidarity
can be hampered by a system that teaches that economical
self-interests should be priority #1. Thus leading to the demise
of the 15% which are not capable of competing.


Capitalism, coupled with a limited central government and fairly independent state governments provide the ultimate compromise between true survival of the fittest, but enough security to foster investment, savings and spending.

I agree totally. But I also think that apart from the purely economic
functions of fostering 'investment, savings and spending', the government should also provide every citizen with education and
health care. Then we would have a system more focused on providing
not only freedom of opportunity, but also freedom of security.


Also, the arguments about affecting the right to free speech, or protest injustice is rather a strawman argument. In a system where individual rights are respected and the government limited to directly intervene in business affairs and individual affairs, the only purpose of government is to enforce and protect those rights. You would still be able to exercise all rights, and all recourse legally for any infringement upon those rights.

But this is just wishful thinking. What we are seeing is a system
where the citizens reduce their own freedom through conformism
and submission. Building a society is not a thought experiment, it needs to be evaluated by observation.
Freedom of speach is just a word, not a reality today.


Maten said:
I already assume that freedom from physical coercion and slavery is in place -

That is the exact type of assumption, and apathy that leads to its internal removal of protection, through coercion, lobbyist corruption of political decision makers, etc.

There is never a safe store of freedom or a guaranteed protection of liberty. Those that seek power and wealth, assault it daily in every courtroom where reason has allowed one to appear. (without reason, there is no court, only force)

Quite so. But I think that this basic freedom needs more than
protection in theory. It needs validation in practice.
It is a disturbing tendency of many western democracies, that
freedom of thought/speech is - in practice - not being exercised.

/Mattias

[Osborn F. Enready]

MAten said:
I am not stating that people are to be forced to treatment. That
is a grave misinterpretation of what I said.

No, its proof you don't know much about the Universal Healthcare being proposed in the United States.

Both of the democrats who are championing UHC are REQUIRING, or MADATING health coverage.

Maten said:
What I meant was that
those who actually want, should be able to receive medical care,
regardless of their ability to pay for, or otherwise receive medical
insurance.

Then you really don't know much about the United States.

In the United States, hospitals MUST treat anyone that walks through the door that has a health problem, assuming its life threatening or causing great pain.
In that sense, we already have UHC, and it is killing the system now, as we speak.

Maten said:
We're not talking about enslavement here. We're talking about
removing the health injustice.

No sir, YOU label it an injustice because YOU don't understand the concept of individual rights, or the cost of liberty. This is in no way an injustice, and the only injustice is expecting people to provide labor for nothing, which is what you are asking. Do you not think doctors and healthcare workers have a right to pay? Do you not think they have the right to set the pay they will work for?

You seem to think that its "JUST" for the government to use FORCE to ROB and STEAL from the people, to provide for those who can't provide for themselves.
That is not only a denial of individual rights, but a blatant crime known around the world as THEFT.

Maten said:
Even those _with_ insurance are finding it more and more difficult to use their ensurance, since it
is not in the interest of the insurance companies to pay for
medical care. One might think that a free market would lead to the
best insurance companies getting most customers. But the
insurance companies are just ... companies, with the primary purpose
of generating $ for their owners.

That is the purpose of going in to business, to make profit.
The ACTUAL drain of funds is coming from the uninsured, illegal immigrants, and those who REFUSE to pay, being treated, AT THE BEHEST OF GOVERNMENTS LAWS, when government has no right to do this, no financial means to cover this, and no right to tax for it.

Maten said:
I agree that this is the cost of having a comercially operated healthcare system. However is it worth having 15% of 300Million people suffering?

Yes. They will act and take care of themselves, or suffer the consequences for not doing such. They will learn to use private charity to get on their feet, learn to turn to friends and family for help, or in the worst case scenario, get a loan to cover their costs and agree to pay X amount of their earnings toward that balance once their health is restored.

Again, I don't believe in unconditional love, nor do I ascribe value to altruism.

Unconditional love, which is what cord your attempting to pull on with this "appeal to emotion" to take care of those who can't or WONT take care of themselves, is a philosophy built on contradiction, and most logical people who go through the thought process of analyzing the concept, see it is a recipe for failure and destined to fail, if not economicly, philosophicly.

Maten said:
When reality hits, in the end, the result is happines and health
for some, but I agree with you. Not all are capable of attaining
this under such a system.

Exactly, the cost of liberty takes its toll on those with short sight, and those who are to lazy to plan to provide for themselves in the present and future.

Maten said:
But why just resign with a shrug. Isn't a sense of freedom and
freedom from anxiety (among other things) worth fighting for?

Only if it is a just ideal, which it is not if it requires theft from some who work to earn their money, only to give it to those who don't. That is called wealth redistribution, and it is directly antithetical to the American ideals and foundation of law.

Maten said:
Having freedom from physical coercion and freedom of speach
is a required first step, but why stop there?

We didn't, read the Constitution and Bill of Rights to get a better understanding.

Regardless, todays government is trampling the Constitution and Bill of Rights, so once again, the people are being forced to choose between state and federal tyranny (both economic and social) and liberty and its associated costs, once again.

I will die in the fight for liberty before surrendering to those who can simply leave this nation to find what THEY seek. Our nation is one of the only nations in the world with a solid foundation of law and history to preserve and protect individual rights, and many of us would rather die than lose that.

MAten said:
One could at least try some other options. Such as increasing
solidarity through public healthcare?

That does NOT increase solidarity except in one small segment of the population, and it would be shortlived, because once the true cost is revealed to provide it, many who supported it will turn against it.

MAten said:
Many western democracies have these kind of systems, and
they seem to work pretty well.

For now, but they are consistently dragging the market down, and were it not for places like the U.S., there would not be a large market for highly trained surgeons, specialists, etc, because globally wages for the profession would drop like a stone.
Would you like to have YOUR wage dictated by government with no say from you?
If you say yes, please explain what you would do if they didn't pay you enough to live, and how you would rectify it?

Maten said:
Capitalism (in its different forms) have proven to be a good way
of ensuring basic freedom. BUT, raw capitalism, does not
- in my opinion - lead to further human freedom.

There are several forms of capitalism, much like there are several forms of communism and socialism.

Laissez Faire Capitalism is the most sound economic system ever developed, and when coupled with a goverment that focus's ONLY on protecting individual rights, it has been called the most moral system of economics on earth.

Maten said:
The system
serves itself, not human interests.

Thats entirely untrue. The system serves those who participate, and leaves those who don't to find their own mark of happiness. It provides the most social freedom, the most political freedom, and the most moral system of government since no group is favored or exploited against another.

MAten said:
I think it is naive to think that
market forces alone are sufficient to ensure the well-being of
the people that are driving the system. I think the 15% that are
outside the system proves this point. They are not useful to the
system, and there's no one there to protect them.

They have no REASON, NO BASIS to expect protection, nor do they have any right to claim it by force, as UHC is attempting to do. The United States has the richest and most dynamic market in the world, and if a person can't make their way here, it is highly unlikely they will make it anywhere, assuming they are willing to APPLY themselves to better themselves, and are not simply wanting to just be another brick in the wall. Some of that 15% have arrived where they are through miscalculation, some by hardship, some by apathy and some by choice. All have an opprotunity to learn, and to call PERSONAL NATURAL collectives to their aid, and we have a HUGE variety of charities to help them. (due to our wealthy and capitalist system, please note)

Maten said:
I assume you speak figuratively. Healthcare should not be mandatory,
thats not what I mean. I merely state that it should be readily available
for everybody.

You say that, but you deny what is REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR IT, or at least, REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE MORALITY OF THEFT that is entailed.

Maten said:
... apart from the 'taxed' which would be included in a government
controlled healthcare system. ... do you really believe that
the other items on the list is being addressed properly by the
current system?

I believe the current system is being overtaken from within, by authoritarian communists on one side (Democrats) and by authoritarian fascists on the other side (Neocon Republicans, who have now overtaken the Republican party)

I am trying to destroy BOTH major parties credibility, simply using the FACTS they provide, such as their voting record, which shows a history of treason and FACTUAL POINTS OF REFERENCE in which they disobeyed and dishonored their oath to support and defened the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

I support neither major party, and view them as one and the same enemy, as they are. They both created the parties we see today, after splitting from one party. Their goals and agendas have been nearly the same with slight, non-important differences since the early and mid 1900's.

Maten said:
I think man operates at his highest level of freedom if not indebted,
no matter to whom or what.
Of course I do not deny that love and sacrifice is a natural reaction
between family and friends. I do not, however, think that it is
strong enough to provide for those who are worse off. (15%)

What you fail to address or admit, is that if the U.S. stopped all of its foreign aid, it would be able to and could easily provide for ALL of its own people.

What would you think of that option?!?

The fact is, this "socialist" idea of foreign aid has been draining ALL working national economies, and it is STILL FAILING in its own goals and agenda. The entire system is a scham upon the working people, to pay for and care for that which is NOT their responsibility.

Maten said:
Survival of the fittest takes on a different meaning when applying
to humans.

For one reason, and one reason only.

Man is the only animal to have capacity for, and ability to use and further reason, logic and change the world in a beneficial or harmful way to all life.

Do you know what logic is? Logic is the process of removing contradiction.
The bulk of what you seem to be espousing is riddled with philosophical and basic economic contradiction, so why would I, or anyone else for that matter call it logical or expect it to be "beneficial"?

Maten said:
Compassion and solidarity is also a benificial factor if we are to
venture into the realm of darwinism. People are social beings,
and empathy is innate. But I think that empathy and solidarity
can be hampered by a system that teaches that economical
self-interests should be priority #1.

And I feel exactly the opposite. I say the concept of "getting something for nothing" or "something undeserved" is part and parcel the biggest moral lie being sold to all people, and is the BASIS for communism, socialism, etc.

As I said, do you dare take on the issue of unconditional love? That is the underlying principle that leads to such irrational ideals.

Maten said:
Thus leading to the demise
of the 15% which are not capable of competing.

They have a right to try, and a right to fail, the same choices we all face. I don't know a single American who has made fortune without sacrifice of some kind. The difference is they CHOSE to sacrifice, and they were rewarded as their logic and sacrifice paid off in the end through sound reaction to their initial actions.

Its all about cause and effect.

Maten said:
I agree totally. But I also think that apart from the purely economic
functions of fostering 'investment, savings and spending', the government should also provide every citizen with education and
health care.

That would directly contradict freedom and liberty in the social sense, as well as in the realm of economics.

What you are saying is people should get something, for nothing.
Show me where that holds true for anything?

Maten said:
Then we would have a system more focused on providing
not only freedom of opportunity, but also freedom of security.

Both are logical fallacies when adding on the word free, as you have done through your espounsing of taxation by (a) government. With taxation comes threat of force, and when taxation is not paid, every individual is left to deal individually with the FORCE of an entire system of government. Thats a bully.

What you are saying is that you think a large portion of people in the world don't live according to a "moral code" you find acceptable, so you incline and push for the government to USE FORCE against those who do not meet your moral code.
Its criminal.

Maten said:
But this is just wishful thinking. What we are seeing is a system
where the citizens reduce their own freedom through conformism
and submission. Building a society is not a thought experiment, it needs to be evaluated by observation.
Freedom of speach is just a word, not a reality today.

I still retain my right to own arms, my rights will not be sacrificed, nor will the other millions of arms owners in the United States.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
-Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the right of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.”
-Aristotle, "Politics"

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country...”
-James Madison

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
-Noah Webster

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
-George Mason

There will be only a period of tyranny before the people enforce their rights through arms. Sensible people, rational people, delay this until there is no hope for peaceful change.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
-John F. Kennedy, 1962

Maten said:
Quite so. But I think that this basic freedom needs more than
protection in theory. It needs validation in practice.
It is a disturbing tendency of many western democracies, that
freedom of thought/speech is - in practice - not being exercised.

Well, the proof is in the pudding. Americans in general have never trusted our government enough to remove or collect our arms, and most of us would never accept it. THAT is the act of preserving individual rights, and if they need be used to shrug off corrupt and unjust government once again, that will be the right of the people should the government fail to amend its unconstitutional ways.

:fight:

[maten149]

MAten said:
I am not stating that people are to be forced to treatment. That
is a grave misinterpretation of what I said.

No, its proof you don't know much about the Universal Healthcare being proposed in the United States.

I think you are mistaken. UHC would not force themselves into your life in the privacy
of your home to forcibly apply healthcare... at least not from what I've read, but I might
have missed this.



In the United States, hospitals MUST treat anyone that walks through the door that has a health problem, assuming
its life threatening or causing great pain. In that sense, we already have UHC, and it is killing the system
now, as we speak.


Cancer is usually not an acute life threatening condition until the very end. I doubt you would be put on a
one year chemo-programme with followups/surgery if you were a drug addict without money. Life threatening
or not.


Maten said:
We're not talking about enslavement here. We're talking about
removing the health injustice.

No sir, YOU label it an injustice because YOU don't understand the concept of individual rights, or
the cost of liberty. This is in no way an injustice, and the only injustice is expecting people to
provide labor for nothing, which is what you are asking. Do you not think doctors and healthcare workers
have a right to pay? Do you not think they have the right to set the pay they will work for?

You seem to think that its "JUST" for the government to use FORCE to ROB and STEAL from the people, to
provide for those who can't provide for themselves.
That is not only a denial of individual rights, but a blatant crime known around the world as THEFT.

It is a matter of opinion. I believe that the entire population would benefit from UHC. I also believe
that your view of the universal health care being synonymous with 'Robbing, stealing, forcing' and otherwise
removing freedom is totally out of proportion compared to other already existing infringements of
freedom which the current system is forcing on the citizens.



Maten said:
Even those _with_ insurance are finding it more and more difficult to use their ensurance, since it
is not in the interest of the insurance companies to pay for
medical care. One might think that a free market would lead to the
best insurance companies getting most customers. But the
insurance companies are just ... companies, with the primary purpose
of generating $ for their owners.

That is the purpose of going in to business, to make profit.
The ACTUAL drain of funds is coming from the uninsured, illegal immigrants, and those who REFUSE to
pay, being treated, AT THE BEHEST OF GOVERNMENTS LAWS, when government has no right to do this, no
financial means to cover this, and no right to tax for it.


I understand that you are satisfied with the current ensurance system. What I was pointing out is that
the current system inherently is not inclined to providing the best care/insurance coverage, but we both
seem to agree that this is the price to pay in order to avoid tax.


Maten said:
I agree that this is the cost of having a comercially operated healthcare system. However is it worth
having 15% of 300Million people suffering?

Yes. They will act and take care of themselves, or suffer the consequences for not doing such.
They will learn to use private charity to get on their feet, learn to turn to friends and family for help, or in the worst case scenario, get a loan to cover their costs and agree to pay X amount of their earnings toward that balance once their health is restored.
Again, I don't believe in unconditional love, nor do I ascribe value to altruism.
Unconditional love, which is what cord your attempting to pull on with this "appeal to emotion" to
take care of those who can't or WONT take care of themselves, is a philosophy built on contradiction, and
most logical people who go through the thought process of analyzing the concept, see it is a recipe for
failure and destined to fail, if not economicly, philosophicly.


As an example:
I think that equal opportunity looses it's meaning if you are an outcast with no friends/family to support you.
Let's say you grow up in a poor neighborhood, you won't have those options.
Of course, you could reason that they would have their chance when growing up. But this means that
you totally ignore the power and real effect of psychosocial factors. Factors which it is unreasonable
to demand/expect every individual to overcome. The society should take responsibility in such situations.
I'm not saying that universal healthcare is the solution to all these problems, I believe that it is a
step in the right direction.


Maten said:
When reality hits, in the end, the result is happines and health
for some, but I agree with you. Not all are capable of attaining
this under such a system.

Exactly, the cost of liberty takes its toll on those with short sight, and those who are to lazy to
plan to provide for themselves in the present and future.


From my perspective, this is an uncompassionate standpoint, with a strong elitistic twist.
I understand your point of view, but I do not agree with you.


Maten said:
But why just resign with a shrug. Isn't a sense of freedom and
freedom from anxiety (among other things) worth fighting for?

Only if it is a just ideal, which it is not if it requires theft from some who work to earn their
money, only to give it to those who don't. That is called wealth redistribution, and it is directly
antithetical to the American ideals and foundation of law.


I don't claim to know American law, but if it's anything like a rational system built for human
thriving, I would hardly think it is antiethical to have a commonwealth. But all arguments you
put forward indicates that you yourself consider it antiethical to have a common free healthcare
for all at the price of a collective funding.




Maten said:
Having freedom from physical coercion and freedom of speach
is a required first step, but why stop there?

We didn't, read the Constitution and Bill of Rights to get a better understanding.


I just did, and compared it to the swedish counterpoint 'grundlagen' and - as I expected -
they are just about identical apart from the part concerning firearms. So I think we have
the same basic conceptions of freedom from government meddling in the rights of the individual.


Regardless, todays government is trampling the Constitution and Bill of Rights, so once again,
the people are being forced to choose between state and federal tyranny (both economic and social) and
liberty and its associated costs, once again.

I will die in the fight for liberty before surrendering to those who can simply leave this nation
to find what THEY seek. Our nation is one of the only nations in the world with a solid foundation
of law and history to preserve and protect individual rights, and many of us would rather die than lose that.


I must apologize in advance, but I must state that I consider that statement very naive.
In what way is your foundation for individual freedom so particular from other democracies in the world?
People in the rest of the western world are equally free to find their own happines, attain their own
individual goals, start whatever companies or ventures they like. Study what they like. Take a job that
fits them et.cetera. Yes, the taxes are higher to pride for equal oppurtunity at studying and healthcare,
but I think that the price of having these basic human needs cared for by the commonwealth is small to pay.



MAten said:
One could at least try some other options. Such as increasing
solidarity through public healthcare?

That does NOT increase solidarity except in one small segment of the population, and it would be
shortlived, because once the true cost is revealed to provide it, many who supported it will turn against it.


Why would they turn against it?


MAten said:
Many western democracies have these kind of systems, and
they seem to work pretty well.

For now, but they are consistently dragging the market down, and were it not for places like the U.S., there
would not be a large market for highly trained surgeons, specialists, etc, because globally wages for
the profession would drop like a stone. Would you like to have YOUR wage dictated by government with no say from you?
If you say yes, please explain what you would do if they didn't pay you enough to live, and how you would rectify it?


This is propaganda. I speak from experience. Salaries for doctors in western europe are very high. In sweden you
would classify it as a high-income in the top-segment. I know this is about the same in all western europe.
It might also suprise you to know that the reason many people study medicine and become doctors stem from
humanistic ideals. And, yet again, there are private practices in europe as well.



Maten said:
Capitalism (in its different forms) have proven to be a good way
of ensuring basic freedom. BUT, raw capitalism, does not
- in my opinion - lead to further human freedom.

There are several forms of capitalism, much like there are several forms of communism and socialism.
Laissez Faire Capitalism is the most sound economic system ever developed, and when coupled with a
goverment that focus's ONLY on protecting individual rights, it has been called the most moral system
of economics on earth.


Moral as stated in a characterisation of an economic system perhaps. I would not put an equal sign
to moral as in the interests of human well being.


Maten said:
I assume you speak figuratively. Healthcare should not be mandatory,
thats not what I mean. I merely state that it should be readily available
for everybody.

You say that, but you deny what is REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR IT, or at least, REFUSE TO ADDRESS
THE MORALITY OF THEFT that is entailed.


I'm not dodging anything here.
All democracies have compromises. It's not like you are paying 0% tax today, (unless you are unemployed).
If the compromise can be agreed upon by its citizens, it is not theft. It's a common understanding.


Maten said:
... apart from the 'taxed' which would be included in a government
controlled healthcare system. ... do you really believe that
the other items on the list is being addressed properly by the
current system?

I believe the current system is being overtaken from within, by authoritarian communists on
one side (Democrats) and by authoritarian fascists on the other side (Neocon Republicans, who
have now overtaken the Republican party)

I would disagree that democrats exhibit authoritarian communist traits, but I would agree
that the republican conservatives have slightly fascistic traits.


Maten said:
I think man operates at his highest level of freedom if not indebted,
no matter to whom or what.
Of course I do not deny that love and sacrifice is a natural reaction
between family and friends. I do not, however, think that it is
strong enough to provide for those who are worse off. (15%)


What you fail to address or admit, is that if the U.S. stopped all of its foreign aid, it would
be able to and could easily provide for ALL of its own people. What would you think of that option?!?
The fact is, this "socialist" idea of foreign aid has been draining ALL working national economies, and
it is STILL FAILING in its own goals and agenda. The entire system is a scham upon the working people,
to pay for and care for that which is NOT their responsibility.


As I said, I'm not dodging anything.
I hardly think that US foreign aid compromises a large portion of the GDP. Not compared to other government
spendings, such as homeland security, military spending, waging war...
Apart from that I don't have an opinion on that matter.
Perhaps you could fund the national healthcare with the foreign aid money :)


Maten said:
Survival of the fittest takes on a different meaning when applying
to humans.

For one reason, and one reason only.
Man is the only animal to have capacity for, and ability to use and further reason, logic and
change the world in a beneficial or harmful way to all life.

Many people would disagree with you in that this is the only point where man differs
from animal. Man is a social being, with a unique talent for empathy and love.


Do you know what logic is? Logic is the process of removing contradiction.
The bulk of what you seem to be espousing is riddled with philosophical and basic economic
contradiction, so why would I, or anyone else for that matter call it logical or
expect it to be "beneficial"?

Human compassion and empathy is perfectly logical from a biological point of view, and has
clear bearings on the survival of humans. As one of many fundamental mechanisms which enable
human social behaviour, it needs to be accounted for when designing system in which humans
are living. Cold reason is not necessarily something that gives a good system. There are
many examples of this, Soviet Union-style communism, fascism (Hitler).


Maten said:
Compassion and solidarity is also a benificial factor if we are to
venture into the realm of darwinism. People are social beings,
and empathy is innate. But I think that empathy and solidarity
can be hampered by a system that teaches that economical
self-interests should be priority #1.

And I feel exactly the opposite. I say the concept of "getting something for nothing" or
"something undeserved" is part and parcel the biggest moral lie being sold to all people, and
is the BASIS for communism, socialism, etc.


You seem to view people as lazy, and by nature non-creative, non-active. As if people, when given
the chance, would become passive and lazy. This is a widespread misconception.
And when speaking of logic, there are scientific studies that contradict this idea of the
'by-nature-lazy' misconception. I can dig out references to this if you like.


As I said, do you dare take on the issue of unconditional love? That is the underlying principle
that leads to such irrational ideals.

It is not irrational. There are many, many scientific studies and much scientific literature written
on the psychology of human existence. I've read some of it.





Maten said:
Then we would have a system more focused on providing
not only freedom of opportunity, but also freedom of security.

Both are logical fallacies when adding on the word free, as you have done through
your espounsing of taxation by (a) government. With taxation comes threat of force, and
when taxation is not paid, every individual is left to deal individually with the FORCE of
an entire system of government. Thats a bully.

Well, you are paying tax today aren't you? Having a system with no commonwealth would lead
to an ultimate egoistical system. I doubt many would like it. Are you consider yourself being
robbed everytime you pay tax?


What you are saying is that you think a large portion of people in the world don't live according to
a "moral code" you find acceptable, so you incline and push for the government to USE FORCE against
those who do not meet your moral code. Its criminal.


No, I'm quite satisfied with my mode of life, and I consider myself quite free. What I think is
that there is still a lot of room for improvement. That's why I'm debating.


Maten said:
But this is just wishful thinking. What we are seeing is a system
where the citizens reduce their own freedom through conformism
and submission. Building a society is not a thought experiment, it needs to be evaluated by observation.
Freedom of speach is just a word, not a reality today.

I still retain my right to own arms, my rights will not be sacrificed, nor will the other millions
of arms owners in the United States.


What does your guns have to do with your freedom?


“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that
this people preserve the right of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Ah, now I understand, the righ to wear a gun is a symbol that the people have the power to overthrow
the government if they misbehave. ?


“Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.”
-Aristotle, "Politics"

I think this statement obsolete. Peaceful democracies would not need to have a power balance between
the people and its rulers forged by weapons.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every
kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because
the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops
that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
-Noah Webster

Old fashioned.


Maten said:
Quite so. But I think that this basic freedom needs more than
protection in theory. It needs validation in practice.
It is a disturbing tendency of many western democracies, that
freedom of thought/speech is - in practice - not being exercised.

Well, the proof is in the pudding. Americans in general have never trusted our government enough
to remove or collect our arms, and most of us would never accept it. THAT is the act of preserving
individual rights, and if they need be used to shrug off corrupt and unjust government once again, that
will be the right of the people should the government fail to amend its unconstitutional ways.



This thread is getting rather long. Please feel free to omit any sections you like in your response,
if you choose to respond.

/mattias

[Osborn F. Enready]

Maten said:
I think you are mistaken. UHC would not force themselves into your life in the privacy
of your home to forcibly apply healthcare... at least not from what I've read, but I might
have missed this.

I never said that. I said both majority party leaders versions of UHC have MANDATES that all individuals must maintain some type of health coverage, or be fined, or otherwise "dealt with".

Maten said:
Cancer is usually not an acute life threatening condition until the very end. I doubt you would be put on a
one year chemo-programme with followups/surgery if you were a drug addict without money. Life threatening
or not.

I have trouble here seeing your point?
Are you saying that is WRONG?!? If so, why, based on what?
Why should society value the persons life more than they themself do, and more importantly, why should they foot the bill for the obvious problems that befall them due to their choice of lifestyle and lack of planning?

Its like your encouraging the opposite of responsible living.

Maten said:
It is a matter of opinion. I believe that the entire population would benefit from UHC.

You have no RIGHT to speak for the entire population, nor do I.

Maten said:
I also believe
that your view of the universal health care being synonymous with 'Robbing, stealing, forcing' and otherwise
removing freedom is totally out of proportion compared to other already existing infringements of
freedom which the current system is forcing on the citizens.

You assume since there is already injustice, we should increase it?!?
I suppose you didn't notice where I stated that many people, are fighting not only UHC, but also the crop of existing CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS in law that already exist, there are many.

I fail to see the logic in your line of thought here.

Maten said:
I understand that you are satisfied with the current ensurance system. What I was pointing out is that
the current system inherently is not inclined to providing the best care/insurance coverage,

I disagree. The current system provides the best coverage, PER INDIVIDUAL, which is not the same as UHC which judges coverage PER NATION, or STATE.
One has the intrests of a national collective or state, the other has intrests geared towards individuals.

Maten said:
but we both
seem to agree that this is the price to pay in order to avoid tax.

This is one price we pay to avoid additional tax, on top of the already unconstitutional level of taxation.

Maten said:
I think that equal opportunity looses it's meaning if you are an outcast with no friends/family to support you.

Some people, like myself, are striving to reach that point, not trying to avoid it. Its called the pride of being fully independent and self sustaining. Do you think that is not a valid goal?

Maten said:
Let's say you grow up in a poor neighborhood, you won't have those options.

Not everyone is entitled to all options. In this country, people are entitled to two things, a Constitutionally limited Republic, and full respect for their individual rights, both those enumerated and those not enumerated. That is where the promise of government ends. You have the RIGHT as an individual, to pursue happines, but happiness is not an entitlement. You have the RIGHT to aquire healthcare, but no ENTITLEMENT to the means to provide it. You have the RIGHT to live your life as you see fit, with the only condition being you do not infringe upon the equal rights of others.

You have no RIGHT to free healthcare, or public paid healthcare, and in fact it goes directly against the concept of the foundational laws and philosophy of the United States of America.

Do you see my point?

You are operating on the basis of altruism, which is not a part of our social contract (constitution) nor is it within the auspice of our government to assume or put forth such a contract, as it directly infringes upon the individual rights which bind the nation as a union.

Maten said:
Of course, you could reason that they would have their chance when growing up. But this means that
you totally ignore the power and real effect of psychosocial factors. Factors which it is unreasonable
to demand/expect every individual to overcome.

That is an entirely subjective opinion, based on the concept that collective rights overrule individual rights... an concept both insulting and offensive to me, and for good reason. It not only insults my national heritage and culture, but it is also directly contradictory to reason when viewed in full scope.

Without individuals, which humans are, there can be no collective, as individuals combined under a common cause, ideals or beliefs, or a common pact, is what forms a collective. If all the individuals don't agree to the common "rationale", there can be no harmony, and will eventually be violence.

Its common sense. Morality, values and subjective ethics are NOT universal, nor is philosophy.
You can't deny it, because that is the source of this argument, and if they were universal, there would be no arguments, only harmony.

Maten said:
The society should take responsibility in such situations.

That is a subjective opinion, one which I do not hold.

Maten said:
I'm not saying that universal healthcare is the solution to all these problems, I believe that it is a
step in the right direction.

I do not, for many reasons, but mainly the ones I have posted thus far.

Maten said:
From my perspective, this is an uncompassionate standpoint, with a strong elitistic twist.
I understand your point of view, but I do not agree with you.

The only elitist twist is people playing on the concept of unconditional love, altruism and faith to forego their blood, sweat and tears they spend laboring for survival and happiness for something they may not agree with. Nothing in life is free my friend.

Maten said:
I don't claim to know American law, but if it's anything like a rational system built for human
thriving, I would hardly think it is antiethical to have a commonwealth. But all arguments you
put forward indicates that you yourself consider it antiethical to have a common free healthcare
for all at the price of a collective funding.

Yes, I do.

For example....

What if people accept they no longer own their bodies?!? What if then the state has full control over healthcare, and they deem the cost is too high, knowing the people can't rationalize any more taxation to support it. What do they do then? Do you allow them to dictate a healthy lifestyle, and use force to ensure compliance among the populace? What is the GOVERNMENTS stake in keeping UHC efficient, effective and top rated? What is the incentive for people to become healthcare professionals, not just good ones either, but OUTSTANDING ones?

There is a littany of issues to address, and I have seen no debate of these issues, nor any competent arguing of the serious, semantical differences UHC would cause.


Since you don't know American Law, I can excuse your ignorance of it. I however cannot ignore the ignorance of my American countrymen who argue for it knowing nothing of what it truly costs, regarding all issues both legal and economic, as well as philosophic.

Maten said:
I just did, and compared it to the swedish counterpoint 'grundlagen' and - as I expected -
they are just about identical apart from the part concerning firearms. So I think we have
the same basic conceptions of freedom from government meddling in the rights of the individual.

I doubt it, due to the obvious differences I have seen so far, but time will tell.

I would appreciate a link to your systems legal and current National Constitution if you have it available.

This is a link to ours:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html

Maten said:
I must apologize in advance, but I must state that I consider that statement very naive.
In what way is your foundation for individual freedom so particular from other democracies in the world?

Enumerated, not GRANTED, individual rights tied to solid logical philosophy, with clear and evident relevant issues that are forbidden from change, without following a very exhausting, and nearly impossible system of change. Many view this as a good thing, since issues of individual rights are not to be taken lightly, nor is the roll of government.

Also, we are not a democracy, but a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic.

While some view that distinction as trivial, it is far from it.

Maten said:
People in the rest of the western world are equally free to find their own happines, attain their own
individual goals, start whatever companies or ventures they like. Study what they like. Take a job that
fits them et.cetera. Yes, the taxes are higher to pride for equal oppurtunity at studying and healthcare,
but I think that the price of having these basic human needs cared for by the commonwealth is small to pay.

I disagree about equal freedom, in some of the areas you mentioned, as well as others not mentioned. Part of this is due to my fundamental lack of fluency in foreign governments, your included, however, I do not see our system as being fundamentally broken, except by those who have been changing it for the last 100+ years. (with exception to equal rights for blacks and women)

Maten said:
Why would they turn against it?

They would see the full cost, regarding loss of freedom both economic and social, as well as the increase in taxation, waiting times for care while at the same time care quality would decrease for those who already have it.

Maten said:
This is propaganda. I speak from experience. Salaries for doctors in western europe are very high. In sweden you
would classify it as a high-income in the top-segment. I know this is about the same in all western europe.

"High" pay is a term relevant to context. How do doctors salaries compare between there and the United States, on equal levels of skill?
How do they differ between private practice and public, related to pay here on equal skill levels?
What is the buying power of the currency used there, as compared to here with trade selection being a relevant factor?

Those are all issues that would need to be addressed if we really wanted to compare.

Maten said:
It might also suprise you to know that the reason many people study medicine and become doctors stem from
humanistic ideals.

Not at all a suprise. I am very good friends with a doctor and I know that is one of the reasons he chose that course of study. I also want to state, I have nothing against humanists, as an individual choice of philosophy.

Maten said:
Moral as stated in a characterisation of an economic system perhaps. I would not put an equal sign
to moral as in the interests of human well being.

America was an attempt to remove economics from state, much as religion.
Economics are inherantly objective, whereas humans are inherantly partially subjective.
It is no wonder that these things are not similar, at least to those who view their seperation as proper.

Maten said:
I'm not dodging anything here.
All democracies have compromises. It's not like you are paying 0% tax today, (unless you are unemployed).

Thats a story all to itself, but yes, I am officially unemployed since I am employed by a family member, for cost of living.
Some democracies, like ours, have LIMITED auspice of authority to compromise certain issues, individual rights in this case.
Individual rights assert individuals own their own bodies, are responsible for themselves. To remove this "responsibility" from health and welfare is an apparently obvious contradiction, logicly, and an obvious increase in the power of government, WITHOUT going through the proper process, even if it COULD be logicaly looked over. (which it couldn't.)

Maten said:
If the compromise can be agreed upon by its citizens, it is not theft. It's a common understanding.

NO no no.... No majority has the right to vote away the rights of the minority.
That is in essence what you are putting forth.

Maten said:
I would disagree that democrats exhibit authoritarian communist traits, but I would agree
that the republican conservatives have slightly fascistic traits.

This does not suprise me knowing your confessed bias, with all due respect.
Objectively speaking, one must investigate the facts behind the platform of the democratic party, and then put that in context of the means they are using to achieve it. They are using government force as their operative tool, which is my essential point. They use force as would a bully, to force the minority to conform to the will of the majority, and this is not the mark of a "just" system.

Maten said:
As I said, I'm not dodging anything.
I hardly think that US foreign aid compromises a large portion of the GDP.

That is not where one would measure from and INDIVIDUALIST point of view.

GDP is the discretion of the state, controlled by the state, regulated by the state.

Foreign aid, as a CONCEPT, is critically antithetical to OUR system of law. They government is not CHARGED with that responsibility, nor have they sought that power through the proper Constitutional channels. This is a currently contended topic, at all levels.

Maten said:
Not compared to other government
spendings, such as homeland security, military spending, waging war...
Apart from that I don't have an opinion on that matter.

Judging from your answer, I would beg to differ. ;)

Maten said:
Perhaps you could fund the national healthcare with the foreign aid money

It could be done, but, the question is would the American public allow it to be done or would they give it back to whom it rightly belongs (taxpayers) so that they may distribute and spend it as they see fit?

Maten said:
Many people would disagree with you in that this is the only point where man differs
from animal. Man is a social being, with a unique talent for empathy and love.

Sounds Kantian. ;)

Seriously, man also differs in respect to capacity for objective reasoning, logic and its application, and a variety of other finite differences.

I have no doubt man is a product of evolution, so no argument there, but we disagree on what seperates man from animal would be fair to say.

I do not think emotion and empathy outweigh logic, reason and volitional choice based on rational self intrest.

Maten said:
Human compassion and empathy is perfectly logical from a biological point of view, and has
clear bearings on the survival of humans. As one of many fundamental mechanisms which enable
human social behaviour, it needs to be accounted for when designing system in which humans
are living. Cold reason is not necessarily something that gives a good system. There are
many examples of this, Soviet Union-style communism, fascism (Hitler).

I noticed you mentioned no societies built on reason, that outlawed the use of force to the maximum extent? I also would argue there was little "reasoning" behind either of those systems mentioned since they found their roots in nationalism and patriotism, and of course.... UNCONDITIONAL LOVE to attain the goal at all costs of self sacrifice.

Both systems used force as a main operative of enforcement.

Maten said:
You seem to view people as lazy, and by nature non-creative, non-active. As if people, when given
the chance, would become passive and lazy. This is a widespread misconception.
And when speaking of logic, there are scientific studies that contradict this idea of the
'by-nature-lazy' misconception. I can dig out references to this if you like.

I don't view people as lazy or non-creative by NATURE, but by conditioning. People can be conditioned and affected by their enviroment, as much as perceived "norms", and usually are conditioned if there is a system that permits that type of abuse through overzealous compassion or simple lack of objective oversight.
I view man as naturally gifted through the process of evolution, and now has become his own worst enemy, or own best ally, depending on the rationality and clarity of his choices. We are our own source of calamity and bliss, and our biggest threat with exception to natural catastrophic forces. Regardless, we have stepped into our domain, as we are the controllers of our and all lifes destiny since we are going to be our own natural selectors, unless natural catastrophe takes the reigns before that.

Rational people understand not everything can be compromised, and when that point is reached, rational people agree to live exclusively seperate, but equal.
This is how I view the seperation of authoritarians and individualists, capitalists and communists.

If you would like to know more about the basic philosophy I ascribe to individually, you could read Ayn Rand.

Maten said:
It is not irrational. There are many, many scientific studies and much scientific literature written
on the psychology of human existence. I've read some of it.

I too have read some of the studies, on both sides of this argument. You know, there ARE two sides or more to every argument?

Maten said:
Well, you are paying tax today aren't you? Having a system with no commonwealth would lead
to an ultimate egoistical system. I doubt many would like it. Are you consider yourself being
robbed everytime you pay tax?

I have no issue with VOLUNTARY tax. That is not how the bulk of taxation is.
The size of the majority, once again, is not an issue when discussing individual rights as no majority may infringe or remove the rights of any minority, or vice versa.

Maten said:
No, I'm quite satisfied with my mode of life, and I consider myself quite free. What I think is
that there is still a lot of room for improvement. That's why I'm debating.

You really didn't address the point though.

You do believe its morally sound for people to be able to vote away or to increase others rights, don't you?

Maten said:
What does your guns have to do with your freedom?
Ah, now I understand, the righ to wear a gun is a symbol that the people have the power to overthrow
the government if they misbehave. ?

Correct. Its the true sign of when a government respects its people.

Maten said:
I think this statement obsolete. Peaceful democracies would not need to have a power balance between
the people and its rulers forged by weapons.

Any rational society has weapons for foreign threat. That must be counter balanced by the populace being able to resist the threat of the defense forces, should they be controlled by government and turned against the people. Its happened many times throughout history, and one would be naieve to think the threat somehow dissolved into thin air, or that the struggle for power is any different today than in the past.

Peaceful democracies have defense forces, and have developed police states.

Maten said:
Old fashioned.

Yet still accurate. Kind of like a few nice rifles I have.

[Mark L Hamburger]

We don't need UHC in this country. Everyone always says "blah, blah blah, millions without insurance, blah blah blah, lower life expectancy" while ignoring the fact that not everyone NEEDS insurance. We are as close to UHC as we currently need, no one is turned away, our lower life expectancy, if you exclude accidental death from the statistics, is actually higher than most other countries.

If our health care system is so bad, why do so many Canadians (among others) come here to get medical treatment? If you need insurance or help with paying for medical treatment, you have many options. Every state I know of has an indigent care program, every state has Medicaid, there are many many charities that can and do help. This "crisis" that we have here is not a crisis at all, it's simple fear mongering. Those that support it generally have good intentions, but, as the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[davo]

Fascism has become a pejorative term (it wasn't always, and to many, is still not) because it's associated with the Italian dictator who coined it...Benito Mussolini. The most concise definition of fascism is: The collaboration of government and private industry into a cooperative venture. Hillary Clinton's plan to nationalize the private health care system in America is a classic example of fascism. It is therefore quite correct and reasonable to observe that she advocates fascism. A person who advocates fascism is properly called a "fascist." People who support fascists are properly termed, fascists.


Wrong about private business merging with government = fascism. I've heard so many people claim this, and I'm almost certain it's incorrect so I'll try to straighten things out, and explain the origins of the misconception.

This concept most likely began with confusion over the association of the word 'corporatism' with 'fascism'. When the term 'corporatism' or the 'corporate state' is referred to in fascist literature, it has very little to do with what we consider modern business corporations. The term 'corporate' is derived from the Latin word 'corpus', which of course refers to a body of some sort. Thus a modern business corporation is an artificial 'body' or person created for the purposes of raising capital, producing goods and services, and paying taxes.

However, an Italian fascist 'corporate state' refers to the state or nation as an artificial organic entity composed of its citizens. The corporate state competes in the world to enhance the power of the group of citizens that live under it. This differs from views at the time of both international laissez faire capitalism as well as one-world Marxism. It has absolutely nothing to do with business corporations like McDonalds or Coca-Cola. In fact, business corporations are most likely to support laissez faire capitalism, which is in contradiction to Mussolini's ideas. (It is true though that multinational corporations did do business with Hitler and Mussolini, although this was through a desire to make $$$ rather than any ideological agreement.)

[maten149]

I took the liberty of omitting some of the back-commenting, to reduce the load on the webserver :-)


Maten said:
Cancer is usually not an acute life threatening condition until the very end. I doubt you would be put on a
one year chemo-programme with followups/surgery if you were a drug addict without money. Life threatening
or not.

I have trouble here seeing your point?
Are you saying that is WRONG?!? If so, why, based on what?
Why should society value the persons life more than they themself do, and more importantly, why should they foot the bill for the obvious problems that befall them due to their choice of lifestyle and lack of planning?


Yep, I consider it wrong. I think It's the responsibility of the collective state to counteract alienation of
groups or individuals from participating in society. I do however think I begin to understand your line
of reasoning.
"Everyone fend for themselves, the government should never meddle, only flatten out the playfield"

I think my reasons for not sharing this view is obvious - a humanistic view on creating a secure and
good ground for human development and growth.

Specifically, what differs between us, is that I think the government should have an active role
in promoting the conditions set forth by the UN Human Rights Charter, article 25 and 26.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I think the swedish system, like so many other, have ratified this charter in it's entirety. It is also
written in to the 'grundlag'. (More on that below)




Maten said:
It is a matter of opinion. I believe that the entire population would benefit from UHC.

You have no RIGHT to speak for the entire population, nor do I.

I said that I believe, not that it is a fact.


Maten said:
I also believe
that your view of the universal health care being synonymous with 'Robbing, stealing, forcing' and otherwise
removing freedom is totally out of proportion compared to other already existing infringements of
freedom which the current system is forcing on the citizens.

You assume since there is already injustice, we should increase it?!?
I suppose you didn't notice where I stated that many people, are fighting not only UHC, but also the crop of existing CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS in law that already exist, there are many.

I fail to see the logic in your line of thought here.

I believe that we have a fundamentally different view of democracy. In my opinion, everybody cannot
be satisfied with all decisions taken on a national level. In a representative democracy, if a majority
wants to increas spending on healthcare. Those who do not, need to accept this.
You want a representative democracy as well, but the power of that government should not
be allowed to exempt taxes which have any other purpose than maintaining the economical and legislative
system. I.e. State should not provide for health care, and look after the interests of the weak and sick.
You believe that the market and charity would provide for those in a self-organizing way.

Are we in agreement over the difference between our points of view?

My key critizism of this mode of operation, is that gaps will be created, the weak will live in fear and
uncertainty, because there is no gain in helping the weak. Charity cannot alone manage the responsibility
of the many millions outside the (economically self sustained) system.


Maten said:
I think that equal opportunity looses it's meaning if you are an outcast with no friends/family to support you.

Some people, like myself, are striving to reach that point, not trying to avoid it. Its called th