Is It Time The USA Had A National Health Service?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: sdbest 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.

Here, he explains it so much better than I could on this format.


America: Freedom to Fascism


If you want socialism, it exists elsewhere. Try seeking it out instead ask all of your neighbors to share your benevolent social awakening, and perverting all of our laws in the process.


Which begs the question...


Why must this social awakening be shared by all?


Seems to me like we ( proponents of freedom ) consistently resist your attempts to drag us along your path to "enlightment", so why do you insist on dragging us all along for the ride?


Since it seems you can't play well with others, what other method do we have to self segregate ourselves away from you folks?


It's looking increasingly like it must again be done at the end of a gun barrel, which would explain why so many of the same voices can be heard crying in the gun threads.


Some folks never learn.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Here, he explains it so much better than I could on this format. America: Freedom to Fascism

I looked at the site. The guy seems to have some very sound ideas. But exactly which part do you want me to look at? The video about the IRS is no longer available.

At any rate, are you saying that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution which gave Congress the power to levy an income tax is "unconstitutional"? How can the Constitution be unconstitutional, if that's your position?

At the end of a gun barrel, eh? Who you gonna shoot--and how many-- when most Americans don't share your views?

I don't get it. If you find your country and countrymen so loathsome why don't you live in the wilderness and be free?

Regards
S.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Here, he explains it so much better than I could on this format. America: Freedom to Fascism

You showed me your web site reference. Now, you look at mine TaxProphet Hot Topics - February 1996

Regards
S.

[Osborn F Enready]

Banko said: 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.

Where have you read that?!? Not in any of my posts.

I am pro-limited government, unlike my friend Autolykos who argues against government. (hope I am not mistaken here Auto, but I don't think I am)

The sheer volume of what you DON'T know about me should preclude you from assuming anything about my positions, much less blurting them out as if it was fact, but it hasn't stopped you yet.

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

Yes, correct. Do you know what the Bill of Rights did?

Banko said: 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.

No, and incorrect.

We live in a TYPE of democratic society, but have nothing in common with a "democracy" by definition.

The Bill of Rights was designed to limit ANY SIZED majority from trampling the rights of any number minority, in law.

Do you think if 99% of the people wish to remove the right to free-speech, they should be allowed to? The Bill of Rights was intended to prevent that, which is why individual rights, self-evident rights were INALIENABLE in law until the Supreme Court was eroded by bi-partisan monopoly, 157 years ago.

Does that make ME against every change in the last 157 years? NO. It makes me against every change in the last 157 years that has VEERED OUTSIDE the authority of the FEDERAL or STATE Governments, something not possible 160 years ago, without blatant revolt.

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

I don't know if they are, because I don't know if Buddhists care about anything enough to die for. I would die in resistance before succumbing to slavery, and I don't know if a Buddhist would do such an act.

Then again, I am not a Buddhist, nor a Libertarian, but I vote Libertarian.

What is you fascination with comparing Buddhism to Libertarianism?

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

Woah.... I said FROM WHERE I STAND! What don't you understand about that showing "subjective opinion" from my point of view?

I don't know much about Buddhism, nor have I ever sought to bash or champion Buddhist beliefs, that doesn't mean I condemn nor condone it, as I never have that I know of.

I surely have more in common with the Buddhists I have met than either Christians or Muslims or any other organized religion I have come across.

Your point?

Banko said: 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.

Ha, thats funny......

If you could only speak on what you know of in general statements, we wouldn't be discussing the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, since you seem to know little of those.

How did my "general statement" offend anyone, and do I care if they are offended by such a benign, ambiguous statement?!?

Soylent Green said: There are better ways of getting rid of a political party you don't agree with other than shooting them.

I place force as the last option, the option of no other choice (other than surrendering).

I don't want to, nor have I ever shot anyone. My goal would be peaceful respect between differing philosophies, but socialists, communists and fascists, religious zealots, fundamentalists, extremists, etc just don't seem to want to accept that.

Soylent Green said: I am starting to feel that you hold the constitution almost to the level if religion

If that is all you can relate to at the level, use it that way.

I hold to the Constitution because that is the "Law of the Land", and the legal foundation for this nation, a nation run adrift on corruption and malice thanks to the bi-partisan monopoly on politics that has existed for the last 157 years.

What it comes down to is this....

Either you love individual liberty enough to fight for it, to the death when threatened with lethal force, or you don't. I do, and will, without question, which is why I respect the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the goal of this nation when founded as a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic.

Those limits, are the Bill of Rights, and its about time they made a comeback.

SDBest said: 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"?

The Bi-Partisan corruption that was foisted and arranged to pass that amendment. The same very methods used to pass the Federal Reserve Act, imagine that.......

[Osborn F Enready]

Milton Bradley said: Seems to me like we ( proponents of freedom ) consistently resist your attempts to drag us along your path to "enlightment", so why do you insist on dragging us all along for the ride? Since it seems you can't play well with others, what other method do we have to self segregate ourselves away from you folks? It's looking increasingly like it must again be done at the end of a gun barrel, which would explain why so many of the same voices can be heard crying in the gun threads.

I couldn't agree more, and well said.

[Zeebadee]

An interesting discussion, with valid points coming from both sides.

Wouldn't universal health care be covered under the Preamble principle of promoting the general welfare? We don't discriminate and deny low income people from a national defense, or deny them police or fire protection. Is defense from disease really much different than defense from terrorism? Isn't it in the best interest of the state to try and keep it's citizens alive? Though I have no kids in school, my taxes go to pay for schools under the concept that educated kids are an indirect benefit to me, as well as society in general.

[pikatore]

Quote by: 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.

For a person who accepts the fact that he isn't allowed to drink alcohol until 21 (although OUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!!!111), I don't see how your same argument can apply against a health care system.

It works well in the UK, and it is using tax dollars that would have been spent on other things such as defense... or a space program.

[Kamehameha34]

For a person who accepts the fact that he isn't allowed to drink alcohol until 21 (although OUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!!!111), I don't see how your same argument can apply against a health care system.

Non sequitur..?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Then you're just a terrible debator. You're not making points any more. This is most likely because you've realized that coercive taxation laws are truly unconstitutional, and are trying to save face.

That's enough of this behaviour, please debate the points and leave bickering aside.

Quote by: 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.

For the record, I've been involved in political and human rights cases in court on four occasions. One took us all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In my most recent case, concluded last month, we forced the Ontario government to lower the requirements of forming a political party in Ontario.

You could not be more wrong in suggesting that I do not respect individual rights. Not only do I respect them, I fight for them--and have won more often than lost.

As for jury nullification, it was jury nullification that struck down Canada's anti-abortion laws. As a result in Canada women have the right to choose. Jury nullification is often the last recourse for those charged under unjust laws.

And your record is?


Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: banko Uh...perhaps the references to killing me and tv shows

Where did I make a reference to killing you?

As for "tv shows", you completely missed my point. Please re-read my post in question and (try to) respond again, or I will conclude that you are unable to.

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

If that's what you want to call it, fine. I have no problem in revising my arguments. Why should you?

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.

Would you feel better if I changed my statement to "most other moral systems"?

- Rob

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Non sequitur..?

That wasn't directed at you, and I'd prefer if you stopped being a smartarse.

[Osborn F Enready]

pikatore said: For a person who accepts the fact that he isn't allowed to drink alcohol until 21 (although OUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!!!111), I don't see how your same argument can apply against a health care system.

I didn't accept it when I was 18, nor do I accept it now. I broke the law to drink when I was 18, 19, 20 and 21, and actually drank legally at age 19 on military bases.

I am sorry you can't see the application.

pikatore said: It works well in the UK, and it is using tax dollars that would have been spent on other things such as defense... or a space program.

Well, good for you and Canada.

That is not within the constitutional bounds of the United States however.

[Osborn F Enready]

SDBest said: For the record, I've been involved in political and human rights cases in court on four occasions. One took us all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In my most recent case, concluded last month, we forced the Ontario government to lower the requirements of forming a political party in Ontario. You could not be more wrong in suggesting that I do not respect individual rights. Not only do I respect them, I fight for them--and have won more often than lost.

Well, it seems odd, since you and I usually are butting heads over individual rights issues, and your usually pro-collective as opposed to pro-individual. Go figure.

By the way, in the U.S., owning arms is a right. Something tells me what you call rights, and what I call rights, are not the same.

SDBest said: As for jury nullification, it was jury nullification that struck down Canada's anti-abortion laws. As a result in Canada women have the right to choose. Jury nullification is often the last recourse for those charged under unjust laws.

What?!? You mean Canada has unjust laws?!?

Well, the U.S. does too, and that is what is damaging our system much more than capitalism, or a free-market ever could.

SDBest said: And your record is?

Ex-Military, Divorced and Living free since 1998, and not looking back. Part-time political activist, campaign helper for the Libertarian party, and died in the wool "individual rights exerciser".

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore That wasn't directed at you, and I'd prefer if you stopped being a smartarse.

It's still a non sequitur, and I'd prefer if you stopped being a troll.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It's still a non sequitur, and I'd prefer if you stopped being a troll.

Dammit, it's not a non sequitur. You are throwing around terms too big for you again.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I didn't accept it when I was 18, nor do I accept it now. I broke the law to drink when I was 18, 19, 20 and 21, and actually drank legally at age 19 on military bases. I am sorry you can't see the application.

It's about trust. The people should trust the government to set rules that aren't to ultimately control the populace for the governments own purposes, but to create a safer and healthier society.

THATS why there are minimum age limits on alcohol. THATS why dangerous substances are illegal. It isn't some twisted attempt to control you, it's aimed at your safety. If your government is imposing rules for any other primary reason than to ensure your safety and protection, then its not a good government. And if the people are smart enough to realise this, then a better government will get voted in, ala democracy. For the other systems, the government gets petitioned and pressured directly by the populace to change it's policies and laws. Even a dictatorship can break down if enough people disagree with the leading party. There are ways to stop the government from just shackling you in such a restrictive manner.

But rules are put in place to keep the society healthy. Of course they limit what you can do. That's what a law IS. On this very forum, if you break the rules, you get ejected. But the rules aren't there to limit or negatively inhibit you, they are there for the same reasons laws are there.

Just imagine how screwed up it would be if kids were allowed to just run into bars and get pissed in public. Your argument breaks down on the level not of flaws in the government, but flaws in the people. And in ANY society, be it democratic, socialistic, communist, WHATEVER, rules are made and many 'rights' are restricted to PROTECT the people from THEMSELVES. Scoff at that ideology, but is a pillar that modern civilisation is based on. Your attitude would create a lawless, chaotic world.

So you should look over this whole horrible violation of rights that the NHS is, and realise that it has helped the country's health system in a way that no other health system can. Socialistically inspired systems like the NHS can help a country without forcing anyone to do anything unreasonable, and uses tax dollars for a very good cause.

But I suppose you are against any form of control. What about income tax? You have problems with that as well?

[Kamehameha34]

Dammit, it's not a non sequitur. You are throwing around terms too big for you again.

I love how you throw a hissy fit every time I use a term you obviously don't understand. Does it hurt being that predictable?

In order to be educated in jury nullification, and respect it, SDBest would have to respect individual rights, which he obviously doesn't. For a person who accepts the fact that he isn't allowed to drink alcohol until 21 (although OUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!!!111), I don't see how your same argument can apply against a health care system.

The federal age of adulthood has nothing to do with individual rights, and taxation.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I love how you throw a hissy fit every time I use a term you obviously don't understand. Does it hurt being that predictable?

You need to lose the attitude. I know exactly what a non sequitur is.

Heh, tell me, please. What premises have I established, that the post I made doesn't link to coherently? Have I even ESTABLISHED premises to begin with??? Does this thread even HAVE any premises?

All I see is a guy who doesn't know how to identify logical fallacies properly, and just likes to throw the latin term around to sound intellegent, and a guy who actually can't accept when his 'argument' has crumbled inwards, or when he is WRONG.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The federal age of adulthood has nothing to do with individual rights, and taxation.

They are all dictated by LAWS!! And it is these laws that violate MANY rights we may have!

I theoretically have the right to consume alcohol at any age, anywhere, anytime. But there are laws to restrict it.

You can't target one law, and let the other thousand slide by, restricting you in god know how many ways. If you don't want to be held accountable to laws and rules, go somewhere where everyone disregards them. Let's hope you are good at dodging bullets.

Capitalism allows the public to be 'freer' than communism or socialism, but you are still a far cry from a truly free person. Laws and rules will always exist to protect you from other people, and vice versa. That is why the NHS is in essence no worse than any other health system, and although it's ideological foundations are socialist, it carries way too many benefits to ignore. It is a perfect testament of how socialist ideas can be successfully integrated into western culture.