Is It Time The USA Had A National Health Service?

[Kamehameha34]

You need to lose the attitude.

It's the only way to discuss anything with you, sparky. I'm guessing it's hard for you to see sense through your superiority complex.

I know exactly what a non sequitur is.

Then don't attempt to employ them.

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.

WELL you SEE, I've alREADY outLINED HOW what yOU SAId was a NON-SEquitur, now close the PAGE where you just LOOKED it UP and REAd mY respOnSe.


And no, my keyboard isn't broken. I'm mocking you.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 WELL you SEE, I've alREADY outLINED HOW what yOU SAId was a NON-SEquitur, now close the PAGE where you just LOOKED it UP and REAd mY respOnSe.

You have never explained how it was a non sequitur. Please copy and paste that lines you wrote, because I can't find them.

[Kamehameha34]

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.

Those laws are built upon the principle of legal adulthood, and it's accepted that rights don't fully apply until one is of a proper AGE!!

[Kamehameha34]

You have never explained how it was a non sequitur.

Oh but I have. It was in the post you tried to refute.

[Kamehameha34]

Capitalism allows the public to be 'freer' than communism or socialism, but you are still a far cry from a truly free person.

Capitalism and individual rights are two different scales on the political compass.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Those laws are built upon the principle of legal adulthood, and it's accepted that rights don't fully apply until one is of a proper AGE!!

You said it yourself, legal adulthood is a principle, and therefore is subjective. What if I think that legal adulthood should be 17? Would I be wrong, or simply have a different opinion?

I am showing how even something as fundamental as that 'principle' is still a construct that is imposed on the people, BY the government.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Oh but I have. It was in the post you tried to refute.

Go ahead. Copy and paste it.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Capitalism and individual rights are two different coordinates on the political compass..

Compass? They aren't. The concept of individual rights stretches across all political stances. It permeates every facet of how we live under any government, and how we think we should live.

Besides, you didn't pick up that I'm tieing my argument back into why the NHS is a good idea.

[Kamehameha34]

You said it yourself, legal adulthood is a principle, and therefore is subjective. What if I think that legal adulthood should be 17? Would I be wrong, or simply have a different opinion?

This is why the American people vote on what the age of legal adulthood should be indirectly, by electing people with similar opinions. This allows the government adapt to social tides.

Go ahead. Copy and paste it.

It was a non sequitur because one's opinion on individual rights isn't reliant on their opinion of legal adulthood.

[Osborn F Enready]

Pikatore said: It's about trust.

Exactly correct, and that line of trust stops when the government starts infringing on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, since that is why we rebelled, won, created and ratified this system of government.

Pikatore said: 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.

I agree, once again, which is why that line of trust was set at individual rights and a republican form of government.

The protection of individual rights is the "bar" of trust.

Pikatore said: THATS why there are minimum age limits on alcohol. THATS why dangerous substances are illegal.

No, that is why the system ARGUES they are illegal, but not WHY they are illegal.

Pikatore said: It isn't some twisted attempt to control you, it's aimed at your safety.

Exactly. Its aimed at safety, to win the hearts and minds of the sheeple, who fear personal responsibility, individual rights, and the impact of PAYING THE PRICE for their individual choices.

It doesn't say "these rights may be abridged for safety, so the government can protect the people from themselves". That was never intended, nor should it have ever been allowed.

Pikatore said: 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, that is your opinion, but not our foundation or base of government.

Pikatore said: And if the people are smart enough to realise this, then a better government will get voted in, ala democracy.

The U.S. never was, and never will be a democracy.

Pikatore said: 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.

Yes, and the last "way" to do that is force, which is why retain the right to own arms, and why the police state has not fully closed in yet.

Pikatore said: 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 you, they are there for the same reasons laws are there.

Well, I know full well what OUR law is, and that doesn't have much to do with it.

Pikatore said: 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.

I don't think you understand my argument.

You think it is either police state, or anarchy, but there is such a thing as responsible citizenry, and limited law.

Pikatore said: Scoff at that ideology, but is a pillar that modern civilisation is based on. Your attitude would create a lawless, chaotic world.

LOL, nowhere near lawless, simply limited laws to ONLY protect the rights of the individual, as opposed to the corporations, the lobbyists, the seats of power, and strong central government.

Pikatore said: 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.

I would if I agreed, but I don't.

Pikatore said: Socialistically inspired systems like the NHS can help a country without forcing anyone to do anything unreasonable.

Stealing my income for systems I don't support, agree with, or endorse, is theft. That is quite unreasonable.

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

I am an anti-tax activist, so yes, you could say "I have problems with that as well".

I have no problem with taxation with representation, but we have not had adequate representation in the U.S. for the last 157 years, and the government has far overstepped its legal boundaries of governance.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 This is why the American people vote on what the age of legal adulthood should be indirectly, by electing people with similar opinions. This allows the government adapt to social tides.

That's not the point. Rights are still being violated, because there are people who think otherwise who have the majority's views placed upon them.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It was a non sequitur because one's opinion on individual rights isn't reliant on their opinion of legal adulthood.

Brilliant copy and paste. Though I can't seem to find that in the history.

It isn't reliant, but to be against something like the NHS because it 'restricts rights', you need to have that same attitude against ANY law that restricts you in ANY way. That includes things like needing to be a certain age to drive.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore Compass? They aren't. The concept of individual rights stretches across all political stances. It permeates every facet of how we live under any government, and how we think we should live.

Capatalism has nothing to do with individual rights. I see you didn't get what I meant by compass, so let's try a visual aide:





As you move to the right, the economic policies are more liberal. To the left, they get more towards socialism and communism.

As you move up, citizens lose individual freedom. As you move down, they gain it. Capitalism is an economic policy, meaning that it has nothing to do with the "up and down" part of the compass, which has to do with individual freedom.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You think it is either police state, or anarchy, but there is such a thing as responsible citizenry, and limited law.

What makes you think that reponsible citizens are a given?

And what is 'limited' law?

[Kamehameha34]

That's not the point. Rights are still being violated, because there are people who think otherwise who have the majority's views placed upon them.

That's how democracy works. I only speak up when I'm being oppressed by a majority without respect to the constitution.

It isn't reliant, but to be against something like the NHS because it 'restricts rights', you need to have that same attitude against ANY law that restricts you in ANY way. That includes things like needing to be a certain age to drive.

Not necessarily, though that is an implied stereotype. To treat them as logically consequent, however, is a non sequitur.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Capatalism has nothing to do with individual rights. I see you didn't get what I meant by compass, so let's try a visual aide:

I know about the bleeding compass. My signature has my OWN coordinates on it.

Individual rights are an issue, not a political stance.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's how democracy works. I only speak up when I'm being oppressed by a majority without respect to the constitution.

You still are missing my point. Even DEMOCRACY is sidlining certain 'rights' of minorities with a different opinion.

And the constitution has nothing to do with this point.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Not necessarily, though that is an implied stereotype. To treat them as logically consequent, however, is a non sequitur.

It's not a stereotype! It's about applying a point of view to ALL laws and rules, not just one of them, and seeing how ANY form of organised government is broken down!

[Kamehameha34]

Individual rights are an issue, not a political stance.

They are - or rather, the amount of individual rights people get.

As you go up, you get less individual rights. As you go down, you get more. They don't have anything to do with capitalism.

[Osborn F Enready]

PIkatore said: What makes you think that reponsible citizens are a given?

A given? I didn't say that. Responsible citizens are a product of a nation whose laws are built around individual responsibility. People are either responsible for their actions, or HELD responsible for their actions. Responsible adults, try to raise responsible kids, who later become responsible adults. The public school system has done much to damage the concept, and no suprise, it is also a socialist concept.

Pikatore said: And what is 'limited' law?

Limited, as in, kept at the local level, so local people can effectively petition, change and/or remove the law.

All laws in the U.S. are limited by the bill of rights at the national and state level, but the effective "check" on abuse of power is keeping laws local, within reach of citizen protest and outcry.

[Kamehameha34]

You still are missing my point. Even DEMOCRACY is sidlining certain 'rights' of minorities with a different opinion.

Because that's how democracy works. If I vote for a president who will lower indirect taxes, and I am outvoted, I will not speak out because I was defeated within the bounds of the constitution.

However, an NHS reliant on my direct tax dollars goes against my constitutionally enumerated rights, which can't legally be oppressed by any majority.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 However, an NHS reliant on my direct tax dollars goes against my constitutionally enumerated rights, which can't legally be oppressed by any majority.

Oh, and what rights are we talking about here? The right to control where every cent of your tax dollars go?

You realise that if you have had any tax taken out, I imagine there is a distinct possibility that a small portion of that has gone to NASA to help the space program?