Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Objectivist · Nov 21, 2007, 11:14 pm

Welfare, public education, universal health care, etc.

All these services are a right--a right to take what other people provide.

Can such a right exist? Do we have a right to take what other create and produce? Do we have a right to tell other people whom they may trade with, whom they give their service to, for how much they charge their service?

If so why and more importantly at whose expense?

**Jack** · Nov 22, 2007, 12:04 am

Quote:

Do we have a right to take what other create and produce?

Not against their will, but the services you mentioned are provided with the intent that citizens who need those services avail themselves of them. In some cases and in some communities, repayment is expected for welfare and, in a sense, public education. The public provides those services in hope that the whole society will benefit, prosper and improve.

Objectivist · Nov 22, 2007, 11:57 am

Quote:

Quote by: Isherwood

Not against their will, but the services you mentioned are provided with the intent that citizens who need those services avail themselves of them. In some cases and in some communities, repayment is expected for welfare and, in a sense, public education. The public provides those services in hope that the whole society will benefit, prosper and improve.

At whose expense? And what do you do with those that are not willing to contribute to this collective group of happiness and rainbows?

Keith Hamburger · Nov 22, 2007, 12:23 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Isherwood

Not against their will, but the services you mentioned are provided with the intent that citizens who need those services avail themselves of them. In some cases and in some communities, repayment is expected for welfare and, in a sense, public education. The public provides those services in hope that the whole society will benefit, prosper and improve.

But taxes to provide those are taken from me against my will. I am a member of the "public" and I wasn't ever given the option of not providing for others. And, if I refuse, I could be imprisoned, or, at the very least, the property which I nominally own would be taken from me.

Keith

Praxius · Nov 22, 2007, 01:29 pm

If they are putting money into something equally as you are, then you are equally able to use that service as much as them... to me it balances out. If you don't like the said system, then don't contribute to it and don't use it.

Milton Bradley · Nov 22, 2007, 02:06 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Praxius

If they are putting money into something equally as you are, then you are equally able to use that service as much as them... to me it balances out. If you don't like the said system, then don't contribute to it and don't use it.

See, that's all we're asking for, yet even this simple request is denied. ( Particularly in reference to Universal Health Care. )

Praxius · Nov 22, 2007, 02:09 pm

Then the laws should be challenged and updated so that there is a democractic right to opt out of these programs or to join into them, and provide an alternative.

Which is why I feel for those who want Universal Health care in the US, should think more practically towards a hybred of both Private and Universal in order to see how both work in comparison and who prefers what.

Milton Bradley · Nov 22, 2007, 03:02 pm

Hopefully this illustrates why the rest of us are so angry, and frustrated with those who canot see that part of the puzzle.

HelioPrime · Nov 22, 2007, 03:28 pm

On the contrary a universal health system has everyone providing so everyone has an interest in making sure their money is well spent.

Praxius · Nov 22, 2007, 06:04 pm

Quote:

Quote by: HelioPrime

On the contrary a universal health system has everyone providing so everyone has an interest in making sure their money is well spent.

The point being is to introduce both at the same time so citizens can pick and choose and determine by their own experiences, then bring it to a national vote to decide the final decision and leave it at that.

Objectivist · Nov 23, 2007, 12:04 am

Quote:

Quote by: Praxius

If they are putting money into something equally as you are, then you are equally able to use that service as much as them... to me it balances out. If you don't like the said system, then don't contribute to it and don't use it.

In the US 50% of tax payers pay 92% of all taxes. Is that balanced?

Osborn F Enready · Nov 23, 2007, 08:58 am

Quote:

Objectivist said:
In the US 50% of tax payers pay 92% of all taxes. Is that balanced?

No, but it has been used as a tool to prevent civil uprising, and so far, the sheeple have complied.

Praxius · Nov 23, 2007, 10:22 am

Quote:

Quote by: Objectivist

In the US 50% of tax payers pay 92% of all taxes. Is that balanced?

Well I am only stating what it should be like imo.... if it doesn't seem right to you, then reform it.

Osborn F Enready · Nov 23, 2007, 10:37 am

If all people paid an equal share in tax, there would me a more uniform and equal resistance to raising taxes, and creating new tax funded programs.

The way they have gotten where they are now is by appealing to those with less money, demonizing those with more money, and appearing to be the "vindicators" for the "injustices suffered by the working man".

Really though, its just another manipulative tool of control by government, to keep the worst off from overthrowing the best off, and trapping the bulk of the people (the middle) in the fray.

grandpa · Nov 26, 2007, 10:49 am

The big problem is that people often assume that funding and money-making means quality.
However, I'd suggest that something like quality education has more to do with quality educators rather than pure economics. Similarly, one can get perfect grades and still not be particularly bright.

What should matter is the nature of what is actually done, not the bureaucratic afterthoughts.

Grandpa h.

Nov 21, 2007, 11:14 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Objectivist Immovable Location: Montana Posts: 200	The Right To Take What Other's Provide Welfare, public education, universal health care, etc. All these services are a right--a right to take what other people provide. Can such a right exist? Do we have a right to take what other create and produce? Do we have a right to tell other people whom they may trade with, whom they give their service to, for how much they charge their service? If so why and more importantly at whose expense? "Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and of greatness should be waiting for us in our graves. . .or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth." From Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Nov 22, 2007, 03:28 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
HelioPrime Hucking Fuskies Location: Conn Posts: 2,286	On the contrary a universal health system has everyone providing so everyone has an interest in making sure their money is well spent. What do you say to an atheist who sneezes? Yourdeadthatsit! - Dane Cook

Nov 23, 2007, 10:37 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	If all people paid an equal share in tax, there would me a more uniform and equal resistance to raising taxes, and creating new tax funded programs. The way they have gotten where they are now is by appealing to those with less money, demonizing those with more money, and appearing to be the "vindicators" for the "injustices suffered by the working man". Really though, its just another manipulative tool of control by government, to keep the worst off from overthrowing the best off, and trapping the bulk of the people (the middle) in the fray. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Nov 26, 2007, 10:49 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
grandpa blasphemer Location: Michigan Posts: 7,361	The big problem is that people often assume that funding and money-making means quality. However, I'd suggest that something like quality education has more to do with quality educators rather than pure economics. Similarly, one can get perfect grades and still not be particularly bright. What should matter is the nature of what is actually done, not the bureaucratic afterthoughts. Grandpa h. "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -Ambrose Bierce

Nov 22, 2007, 01:29 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Praxius Mass'Debator Posts: 4,724	If they are putting money into something equally as you are, then you are equally able to use that service as much as them... to me it balances out. If you don't like the said system, then don't contribute to it and don't use it.

Nov 22, 2007, 02:09 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Praxius Mass'Debator Posts: 4,724	Then the laws should be challenged and updated so that there is a democractic right to opt out of these programs or to join into them, and provide an alternative. Which is why I feel for those who want Universal Health care in the US, should think more practically towards a hybred of both Private and Universal in order to see how both work in comparison and who prefers what.

Nov 22, 2007, 03:02 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Milton Bradley BANNED Location: Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica Posts: 7,320	Hopefully this illustrates why the rest of us are so angry, and frustrated with those who canot see that part of the puzzle.