Topic: GOP Tea Party Debate: Audience Cheers, Says Society Should Let Uninsured Die - page 5. (Read 6988 times)

So far you have described taxation and capital punishment. You must be a fan of Ben Franklin who said that death and taxes are unavoidable.

I suppose there is also the capital punishment debate.  In the UK, the vast majority of people support the death penalty but parliament won't enact it.  Having laws we disagree with is a pain.

I have a neighbor girl who has 50 pieces of gold. I want it. However, I don't want to steal it. I go to my local politician (a legally elected representative) and tell him I want the girl's gold. He passes a law permitting me to abscond with it. It is no longer theft. I take the 50 pieces.

Amazing how my conscience is assuaged. Very interesting concept.

P.S. I also have an idea for an assassination... You wouldn't mind helping me out with that would you?

Then it won't be theft.  Theft by definition is illegal.  

The problem you and Fred have is that you both equate solitary individuals with states.  An individual is one person in a society and if he wants something, he has to persuade the society its a good idea.  A State is the embodiment of a society; all your rights and freedoms are provided by the state.  Therefore its bad logic to try to redefine "tax" to be illegal and "theft" to be legal.  Its the law of the State that provides the meaning of both words.

These following concepts are more or less equivalent or at least progress from one to the next.

Collective coercion = fear of physical threats = involuntary force = theft = expropriation = plunder = tax = violation of contract = violence = lack of liberty = injustice.

That about covers it. I didn't miss anything did I?

So we just have to legalize theft and then you will be allright with it?

Um no.  Get a dictionary.  Tax is legal - the other 2 are not. 

So let me get this straight. Plunder = Theft = Tax.

Glad we got that out of the way. Wow that's giving me the chills. [sarcasm] I feel so much better now. Thanks [/sarcasm]

Tax is NOT voluntary.  In fact if a payment is voluntary, it falls outside the definition of tax.

I could take the property of my neighbor and call it love too. It doesn't change the outcome. I'm not going to 'love' my neighbor then, I guess. All I have to do then is call love 'theft', as they would then be equivalent at that point.

Of course, you're going to tell me some poppycock that taxes are voluntary somehow right? Oh, and that I don't have to pay them, except that there are some pretty serious consequences for not doing so.

I can see where this argument is headed.

Fred, good news!  We have a better word.  Its "tax."  And unlike your scheme to rob your poor neighbour, its perfectly legal

I bet that makes you day.  A new word and a crime avoided

You vote, so what? Do you really think voting changes anything? Do you really think voting makes politicians accountable? Information is limited and local. People can not have infinite information and vote accordingly. Voting is just a popularity contest.

The real answer isn't so much that you can or can't get good healthcare from government. I'm sure there are many people who have received excellent care, and others who have not.

The real issue is the one that continues to get muddled by the underlying facts. This fact is the method by which government acquires the resources or monies to fund such healthcare. If you look closely enough you'll very soon realize that for government to provide healthcare, they have to seize the assets and monies of others.

For lack of a better word, we call this plunder. It isn't any different than me going to my neighbor and stealing from him to provide for the healthcare of my loved ones. It is no more legal for me to do it than for anybody else to do it. And all of you who say that it merely takes a majority vote, or for that matter, a unanimous vote (excluding the one being plundered) does not make it any more right.

Why should theft have exceptions? Last I checked, just about everybody I talk to, excepting a few criminals wasting away their time behind bars, finds theft unacceptable. Your ivory towers, your well dressed politicians, your auspicious lawyers and your champions of higher society can't get past the ugly fact that theft is the underlying operating function of government-controlled healthcare.

I know there will be some in this forum who will shoot me down. They've done it in the past and they're not going to stop now. At the very least, please address the theft issue. If you have a way around that, then I'm all ears.

I think the bigger concern is when they booed Ron Paul when he was talking about slashing military spending. If people are so stupid that they cannot see through the BS that the USA needs military bases in 100+ countries and that suggesting a draw down means you are in bed with Osama then it's gonna be another 4 years of Corporatist policies on all fronts.

I think the fact you link the Tea Party with that debate shows exactly what I mean. The Tea Party, the real people on the ground who believe in the ideas of the Tea Party, had nothing to do with that debate. That debate was put on by GOP loyalist which are as much of the Republican Party as the Republican Party itself.

So yes, you would preffer the opinion of a burocrat to decide if your mother is "worthy" of receiving treatment or should be left to die. Honestly, I just can not understand it.

You are intelligent enough to not believe your justification. Burocrats are not interested in getting more money? Burocrats are interested in you? You know government burocrats and politicians are humans, just like business man, and most of them, as far as their job goes, care about money and not you.

When you advocate government control you are advocating giving monopollistic power to some people that care about getting more money and dont care about you (except for discovering the best way to lie to you to get your vote).


1. Advocating against government healthcare is not advocating against healthcare, its actually advocating against bad healthcare.
2. If you go the constitutional way you are going to loose and you know it. The constitution of the USA does not allow for government healthcare.


Government healthcare is not free and its not high quality. You know how I know? Because I suffer it. Let me give you an example: My grandma had cataracts and she was starting loosing her vision. She lived alone. The government said there was a long queu for that operation and she had to wait 6 months. 6 months without barely seeing. Her daughters got together and payed for her a private operation. And all of them had been paying government healthcare all their lives. Now my grandma, who has payed government healthcare, is paying as well a private insurer. Thats the reality of what you are asking. You are asking for hospitals collapsing, not metaphorically, our authorities asks us not to go to the hospiral unless its live or dead some weekends each year because the hospitals basically can not deal with people getting ill (yes this is the Europe you are told is great) and long waiting lists for basic operations. Thats what you call human progress and the reality behind the promises you are hearing.

Its not random that most europeans countries, like Germany or some nordic countries, have gone away from government run healthcare and now run in some sort of mandatory private insurance system.

I think it's funny that you tell me not to lump the Tea Party and Republicans together, when the Tea Party just finished hosting a debate for all the Republican Presidential candidates.

Although the Tea Party is closer aligned to the Republican Party than the Democrat Party I think it is unfair and a mistake to reference the Tea Party and the Republican Party as the same or even similar. The Republican Party, and I mean the Party itself not republican voters, has lost it's way and forgotten we have a Constitution. Republican first and Tea Party second the so called leader of the Tea Party Caucus, Bachmann, has signed onto The Patriot Act which IMHO you cannot agree with and respect the fundamentals of The Constitution. With little deviation the Republican Party as a whole supports Life yet at the same time supports such actions as the U.N. Bombing of Libya, a sovereign nation that posed no security risk to the U.S.

I rather have a publicly elected "burocrat" who doesn't care about profits, and only cares about the quality of my care, than have an insurance broker who doesn't give a damn about my health, and is only focused on making money off me.

Life is protected in the constitution that Republicans and Tea Party followers like to spout about at rally's. If it's protected in the constitution, then by no means should anyone be living without healthcare since not having healthcare is in essence denying yourself life, it is literally suicidal behavior.  We all need healthcare to visit the medical professionals who extend our lives well beyond the years that people were living before healthcare even existed.

I think every single person deserves the right to free, high quality healthcare. How do we pay for it? Easy, raise Warren Buffets taxes, it's disgusting that someone like him pays 17% while people who have absolutely no health insurance somehow deserve to suffer because they are MUCH less fortunate financially. Lets get down to the nitty gritty here, which is something conservatives seem to hate to do. One party wants to take the country in a direction where every single human being in this country gets high grade health care, and the other party want's a primitive "every man for himself" mentality to surface. This kind of thinking is destructive, and absolutely counter productive to the progression of the Human race.

i think the problem really lies in how stupid the actual healthcare system is. it literally costs a fortune if you don't have insurance, i think we need to fix that instead of burning billions.