Is It Time The USA Had A National Health Service?

[Kamehameha34]

In fact, I do rest my case, but reserve the right to comment on further assertions you might make.

When I read this after I've virtually knocked the stilts from under your faulty arguments on my last post, I can't help but take it as a concession.

BTW, in due deference to the principles in the Constitution, you are not the judge, jury, and executioner in this debate--as inconvenient as you may find that.

I leave those roles to logic, and the constitution - two things you seem to have forsaken.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Not constitutionally, as I will prove beyond doubt with this logical syllogism: 1. My money is my property. 2. My property can only be taken from me constitutionally via due process. 3. Due process necessitates me having a substantial affect on the outcome. 4. Due to tax laws, I do not have a substantial affect on the outcome. 5. Due to tax laws, I do not get due process. 6. Due to tax laws, my money is taken from my unconstitutionally. It's objective fact. You are wrong.

In law, who is right or wrong is decided by a court of law. The constitutionality of a law is decided by a court. You seem to think right or wrong in matters of law is decided by you-you could not be more wrong, and centuries of legal precedence is good evidence of that assertion.

Oh! I forgot! You consider that all the courts and the juries are in error.

Regards
S.

[Kamehameha34]

In law, who is right or wrong is decided by a court of law.

From now on, I'm going to be stopping at the first sentence I find a fault with and responding with a quote.

Quote by: Myself "Any existing law is constitutional". No. Any existing law was passed constitutionally. Lack of judicial review doesn't override objective fact. Thusly, lack of judicial review over an unconstitutional law does not make the law constitutional.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Nono Mystic stuff, Auto. I can see you're making the same sort of reductio-ad-absurdum endeavour as Kam, but can't see where you're headed with it.

I fail to see how it is mystic. It was a simple question. Can you answer it?

How about just come out with your argument instead of beating around the bush?

Fair enough. My point is this: Your values lead to aggression (i.e., initiation of violence) being considered legitimate. Mine don't.

Oh I dunno -- getting that triple bypass you're gonna die without, for example.

Gee, what makes me (or anyone else) entitled to a triple bypass? The (alleged) fact that I'd die without it? Does that mean that everyone, everywhere, is entitled to any and all efforts to save their lives, even for just one day? Surely you can see that, if you answer yes, then you advocate a perverse form of slavery.

Man, you wouldn't think so with so many members of this board believing they ought to be able to dispense with it when it suits them.

Er, what?

To put it another way: You seem to be making a very loaded statement, there. Let me ask you, do you have a very specific and complex definition for "society"? For example, is universal "health care" a requirement for a society to exist, in your view?

Culture and language, say. Culture including mentality, world view, "values".

"Say"? I'm looking for a definitive answer, here. Can you try to respect that?

Now, do you think it could be argued that, for example, all citizens of the United States have the same culture, in terms of mentality, worldview, and "values"? My own answer to this question is no. Indeed, I would say that everyone has their own unique mentality, worldview, and values, even if only slightly different from some others'. Culture (and, therefore, society) exists as a continuum, and I think it's extremely difficult (if not impossible) to delineate one culture or society from another.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Nono Quoted by Autolykos: "The U.S. should have a national health service because every other developed nation has one" Just whom are you quoting here, Auto? That sentence in this thread escaped my detection.

I was responding to this:

Quote by: sdbest Read the first post, which raised the issue of a U.S. "NHS" because of what was happening in "other countries." Other countries are not irrelevant to this thread.

Also, the appeal to majority ("Every other country is doing it!") is a very common argument by proponents of universal "health care".

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest Well, aren't we getting a little extremist here?

Is an argument's logical validity in any way affected by how "extreme" one finds it to be?

And, exactly which of your values are you willing to personally kill people to preserve or promote?

I will answer this question after you answer mine. Thanks in advance.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest Perhaps you can explain why the U.S. should not have a universal health care system, like other developed countries. If that's your view.

I'd rather explain why there should not be universal (i.e., state-based) "health care" systems anywhere.

While the appeal to majority is considered a form of fallacious argument, it's also the basis of democracy.

Therefore, democracy is inherently based on a logical fallacy. Bravo -- you've proven my point for me. Thank you. :)

- Rob

[Milton Bradley]

I believe SDBest need to be educated about the right of jury nullification, and how it works to remove unconstitutional laws from the legal process.

[Osborn F Enready]

Milton,
In order to be educated in jury nullification, and respect it, SDBest would have to respect individual rights, which he obviously doesn't.

[banko]

Quote by: Autolykos I'd rather explain why there should not be universal (i.e., state-based) "health care" systems anywhere.

And who are you to presume that your ideas are the right ideas?

I fail to see how this is so hard for people like you to grasp. If the majority of people in a nation want universal health care and are willing to pay the taxes for it then what is the problem? Oh yes that is right you want to have it your way. Well the tough part about life is that you have to live with what the majority want. If you say the majority of the US doesn't want UHC then fine as that is evident in the fact that the US doesn't have UHC. But to spout off about how no one anywhere should have it is simply pushing your misguided attempts to spread libertarian subjective morals onto others. People in countries such as Canada that have UHC disagree with you and are quite happy to have UHC.

[Osborn F Enready]

Banko said: I fail to see how this is so hard for people like you to grasp. If the majority of people in a nation want universal health care and are willing to pay the taxes for it then what is the problem?

If the majority of the nation thinks Banko should die, would you support that?

Why should I accept theft via taxation based on a majority vote?

Banko said: Oh yes that is right you want to have it your way.

No, I want respect for my rights, as promised and held as the core of our society under the Constitution we adopted and ratified.

Banko said: Well the tough part about life is that you have to live with what the majority want.

No, I could choose to die fighting the majority couldn't I?
Perhaps I could simply act as if I agreed with the majority, while secretly working to destroy it from within?

I earn my money with my labor, and a government has no right to take it without my conscent.

If you choose to surrender your money because a "majority" wants it, tell me when you cash your check, and I will show up at your house with a majority of people, so we can take your pay against your will, and that will be ok by you right?

Banko said: If you say the majority of the US doesn't want UHC then fine as that is evident in the fact that the US doesn't have UHC. But to spout off about how no one anywhere should have it is simply pushing your misguided attempts to spread libertarian subjective morals onto others.

How is this different than socialists, communists, fasicsts, etc, spouting off about how they are right, and all others wrong?

Banko said: People in countries such as Canada that have UHC disagree with you and are quite happy to have UHC.

So are you saying ALL people in CANADA adore UHC, or just the majority?

[banko]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Why should I accept theft via taxation based on a majority vote?

Because you choose to live in the US which is a democratic country.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready No, I want respect for my rights, as promised and held as the core of our society under the Constitution we adopted and ratified.

So the constitution holds that there should be no democracy and that it only matters what the individual wants? Odd I thought that whole part that deals with the presidency, and other branches of the government was dealing with democratic aspects of the US, but perhaps I mis-read that part.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready No, I could choose to die fighting the majority couldn't I? Perhaps I could simply act as if I agreed with the majority, while secretly working to destroy it from within?

Sure you could. If you really want to change things then take the path that many have taken before you. Get into government to make changes that will improve things.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I earn my money with my labor, and a government has no right to take it without my conscent.

So then take it to the supreme court and fight for it. Don't just sit back and take it all the while whining about how it is unconstitutional.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If you choose to surrender your money because a "majority" wants it, tell me when you cash your check, and I will show up at your house with a majority of people, so we can take your pay against your will, and that will be ok by you right?

I choose to support UHC and other social ideas. Is there something in that sentance that is hard for you to understand?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How is this different than socialists, communists, fasicsts, etc, spouting off about how they are right, and all others wrong?

Oh I see so now because other people do it, it is ok for you to do it. So isn't that in contradiction of your claim that UHC argument based on the fact that other countries are doing it are invalid? You are trying to force your libertarian views on others - which is the opposite of libertarian views and then cry that others do it so it is ok for you.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready So are you saying ALL people in CANADA adore UHC, or just the majority?

The majority of people choose UHC, and that is the foundation of democracy, what the majority wants makes the rules.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: banko And who are you to presume that your ideas are the right ideas?

Who said anything about "right"?

I fail to see how this is so hard for people like you to grasp. If the majority of people in a nation want universal health care and are willing to pay the taxes for it then what is the problem?

The problem is that the majority thereby forces the minority to also comply. "Might makes right" and all that jazz... deja vu all over again.

Oh yes that is right you want to have it your way. Well the tough part about life is that you have to live with what the majority want.

O rly???

Perhaps a majority of people watch American Idol. Does that mean I have to watch it too? Perhaps a majority of people eat at McDonald's. Does that mean I have to eat there too?

Your argument falls flat on its face. Better luck next time.

If you say the majority of the US doesn't want UHC then fine as that is evident in the fact that the US doesn't have UHC. But to spout off about how no one anywhere should have it is simply pushing your misguided attempts to spread libertarian subjective morals onto others.

Misguided? How so?

From where I am, libertarian morals are inherently less aggressive than other morals. I consider aggression to be wrong. If you disagree, well, hopefully I'll never have to defend my life and/or property against your aggression.

People in countries such as Canada that have UHC disagree with you and are quite happy to have UHC.

"Quite happy", eh? You do understand how difficult it is to get rid of any government program once it's enacted, right? Even if a solid majority of people wanted to get rid of one, it would take nothing short of revolution to actually do so -- even in our "enlightened" democratic age.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

Banko said: Because you choose to live in the US which is a democratic country.

That democracy is limited, and hinged upon individual rights being respected in law, as well as the sanction of the citizens they SERVE.

Banko said: So the constitution holds that there should be no democracy and that it only matters what the individual wants?

No, and that is not what I said.

We are to have a "representative, CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED, democracy", something long shredded by the corruption in Washington, and individual rights are to be universally protected amongst all states that make up that union, as well as protected from abridgement in law.

Banko said: Odd I thought that whole part that deals with the presidency, and other branches of the government was dealing with democratic aspects of the US, but perhaps I mis-read that part.

Probably just mis-interpreted on your part. Don't feel bad, most elected officials can't describe it to you either, but that is no excuse to trample the Constitution for you, anymore than them.

Banko said: Sure you could. If you really want to change things then take the path that many have taken before you. Get into government to make changes that will improve things.

Being an individual, it is I who will choose how I will interact with my government, positively, or negatively, and what methods.

Banko said: So then take it to the supreme court and fight for it. Don't just sit back and take it all the while whining about how it is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has been pilfered and subjugated by corruption, the very corruption I am against, so why would I seek their validation?

Banko said: I choose to support UHC and other social ideas. Is there something in that sentance that is hard for you to understand?

Not if you don't live in the U.S., it is quite easy to understand.

If you live in the U.S., I am trying to point out what YOU don't seem to understand, which is that no majority can justify the use of force (by individual or government) to suppress and steal from a minority, which is what UHC would be doing, if implemented here.

A blatant and obvious infringement of individual rights.....

What is so hard to understand about that?

Banko said: Oh I see so now because other people do it, it is ok for you to do it.

I didn't say that "that" makes it ok, I questioned why it was different, did I not?

Banko said: So isn't that in contradiction of your claim that UHC argument based on the fact that other countries are doing it are invalid? You are trying to force your libertarian views on others - which is the opposite of libertarian views and then cry that others do it so it is ok for you.

I am not using force, personal or government force, to force my views on anyone.

Could you show me where I have?

Banko said: The majority of people choose UHC, and that is the foundation of democracy, what the majority wants makes the rules.

I don't support democracy, since democracy is mob rule by any other name.

Democracy is a failure, and it always has been, and always will be, if left unchecked.

The U.S. was never, and never will be a "democracy".(as long as I am alive)

The U.S. was designed to be a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic. Is that so hard to understand?

[banko]

Amusing how you guys always revert to things that are irrelevant to the governemtal issues and democracy. According to you you there should be no government and you use the constitution to argue for individual rights. But the contstitution outlined the governmental powers so it is constitutional to have a government. You live in a democratic society if you don't like it then that is tough but the US is founded on the majority rules BS that you hate so much.

As for aggression, how are libertarian morals less aggressive than buddhistic morals?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: banko Amusing how you guys always revert to things that are irrelevant to the governemtal issues and democracy.

O rly liek wat??? :rolleyes:

According to you you there should be no government and you use the constitution to argue for individual rights.

Sorry, but I personally never use the Constitution to argue for individual rights.

But the contstitution outlined the governmental powers so it is constitutional to have a government.

That stands as a tautology. Nothing proven, nothing gained.

You live in a democratic society if you don't like it then that is tough but the US is founded on the majority rules BS that you hate so much.

And your point is...?

Let me spell it out for you. You are not arguing from a position of logic. You are arguing from a position of emotion. You seem to be bothered by the fact that some of us are not willing to put up with the majority. Then again, there is nothing you can do about that, is there? No matter how much you kick and scream and throw a fit about it.

By the way: I live under a democratic government. Show me where a "democratic society" exists. Government =/= society.

As for aggression, how are libertarian morals less aggressive than buddhistic morals?

Now there is an interesting question. Honestly. I would wager that libertarian morals are very similar to Buddhist morals. But I could be wrong. In the meantime, I'll do some investigating.

- Rob

[banko]

Quote by: Autolykos O rly liek wat??? :rolleyes:

Uh...perhaps the references to killing me and tv shows

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Now there is an interesting question. Honestly. I would wager that libertarian morals are very similar to Buddhist morals. But I could be wrong. In the meantime, I'll do some investigating.

Oh I see so now you back peddle on your statement that

Quote by: Osborn F Enready From where I am, libertarian morals are inherently less aggressive than other morals

I know they are similar in ways, I am not asking you to point that out. Just asking that if you are to make bold general statements that you at least know what you are talking about.

[SoylentGreen]

Osborn F Enready the right to bear arms to shrug off "defective" government corrupt to its foundations, which is exactly what the communist socialist agenda is in regards to this nation, corrupt to the very foundations of our society, law and culture.

There are better ways of getting rid of a political party you don't agree with other than shooting them.
I am starting to feel that you hold the constitution almost to the level if religion

Quote by: Autolykos You seem to be bothered by the fact that some of us are not willing to put up with the majority. - Rob

To be accurate, you complain about "the majority", but you do put up with it. Or am I mistaken? Are you and others who believe as you organizing a revolution or a new political party?

Regards
S.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I earn my money with my labor, and a government has no right to take it without my conscent. If you choose to surrender your money because a "majority" wants it, tell me when you cash your check, and I will show up at your house with a majority of people, so we can take your pay against your will, and that will be ok by you right?

According to the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified on 3 February 1913, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So what part of collecting taxes from you is "unconstitutional"?

Regards
S.