Health Care: Right, Privilege or Responsibility

[Heat Mizer]

No country should have the "right" to have nuclear weapons, as i see it it's a crime against humanity. If you're not going to use nuclear weapons there wouldn't be any reason for you to have them no matter what country we are talking about.

There are alot bigger crimes against humanity than posessing nuclear weapons. Having them is not the issue. What the intent to do with them is the issue.

 

[AchrisK]

No country should have the "right" to have nuclear weapons, as i see it it's a crime against humanity. If you're not going to use nuclear weapons there wouldn't be any reason for you to have them no matter what country we are talking about.

Problem is, they exist. And you could be right that nobody has the right to have them, and to dictate that other countries can't have them. The USA has made it our right, by our might.

But practically speaking, would you rather we had them, or Iran had them?

 

[Heat Mizer]

Slaughtering thousands of your own people. That is a crime against humanity. But that is an entirely different discussion.

 

[AchrisK]

Thing is it's not a question of either Usa having them or Iran having them. Usa doesn't need nuclear weapons to prohibit Iran from having them. Imagine if China in ten years forbids Usa to have nuclear weapons while developing their own with the argument that they will act responsible with them and Usa wont. China will also be able to make it their right by their might in the future. Not that anyone can do anything about it but i'm just saying, it's hypocritical acting by the ones in power.

Whatever. If your scenario happens, then it happens. You're right, what can be done? We will have to live in that world, just like we are now living in this world.

If nobody is going to use them, I guess the only real reason to have them is to help ensure that nobody uses them.

Are you saying that the USA and everyone else should dismantle and eliminate all nukes? I can see the attraction of that idea, but is it feasable?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It's definitely in everyone's best interest to minimise the number of nuclear weapons in the world. If all countries reduced their stockpiles gradually, then eventually there could be a point at which countries could begin taking the plunge and become nuke-free without any significant risk of someone opportunistically blowing them away as a result.

I guess the trick is whether we can trust governments to honestly report how many nukes they have. Unfortunately that seems virtually impossible.

 

[skeptik]

So because I pay taxes I have no right to disagree with how it's spent?

I didn't say you couldn't disagree with it. I didn't even say you can't say stupid things about it like calling it theft.

If there was a "New World" left to go sail to and start fresh I would do it as soon as my contract with the USMC runs out but there isn't unfortunantely.

sux

I only "agreed" to pay income taxes (I include the Medicare and SS deductions in that) by default because I don't have the option to opt out.

sux/irrelevant as it doesn't change the fact of the matter. Yes you agree by default just as all of us do.

I said [legalized theft]. Robin-Hooding. Regardless of whether it's legal or not, its core concept IS theft.

Saying it doesn't justify it. Explain how welfare programs are theft while addressing the fact that, as a tax paying citizen of the US government you agree to pay your taxes in order for the government to govern efficiently as it sees fit, with part of its governing obligations being to help alleviate injustices.

It's always easier to spend someone else's money isn't? This self-righteous/serving attitude of entitlement to what is not yours sickens me.

Assisting those who were wronged is not entitlement. Stop relying on scare tactics and buzzwords.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well, I'm inclined to think that the other rights you mentioned don't escape the problem you pose for the right to property. So if it's a problem for the right to property, then it's a problem for all the other ones. If that's the case, then bye bye rights.

I'll acknowledge that protecting the rights of life, freedom, and safety from harm cannot always be done without a cost in utility. What I think is becoming apparent, though, is that these rights are not perfect. The rights of freedom and safety, for example, are virtually always at odds with each other. And the right to property must be violated constantly in order to maintain the government which protects all rights. It's pretty absurd to consider these rights absolutely inviolable.

In light of this, can you explain to me why we should not then weigh these rights according to utility? If we're not doing everything in our capacity to maximise utility in the world, then what are our efforts for?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

To tack on another argument to this, I'm going to re-attempt to point out a fundamental distinction between property right and other basic rights.

Of the presumed rights we've been discussing - life, freedom, safety, and property - the right to property is the only one which is not in the best interest of society as a whole.

A world in which everyone's life, freedom and safety are protected is a world which virtually everyone finds desirable. A world in which everyone's right to property is protected is only desirable for people who have enough property to live comfortably. We've already established that having property does not correspond to deserving it, so I see no basis for serving the interest of only this fraction of society.

 

[The Ozzman]

So, someone deserves property only when they are able to buy it? Is that what you're saying?

In my opinion, property rights are an integral part of a free system.

How are property rights not in the best interest of society as a whole?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Because protecting them in the manner of pure capitalism results in a few rich people controlling the economy and leaving everyone else barely scraping by to survive. That is certainly not in the best interest of society as a whole.

 

[Mort Divine]

Socialism is the way of the future. With Scandinavia as our witness to this I guess.

 

[The Ozzman]

Because protecting them in the manner of pure capitalism results in a few rich people controlling the economy and leaving everyone else barely scraping by to survive. That is certainly not in the best interest of society as a whole.

You didn't answer my question. Owning property doesn't necessarily imply pure capitalism

 

[Dak]

I didn't say you couldn't disagree with it. I didn't even say you can't say stupid things about it like calling it theft.

sux

sux/irrelevant as it doesn't change the fact of the matter. Yes you agree by default just as all of us do.

Saying it doesn't justify it. Explain how welfare programs are theft while addressing the fact that, as a tax paying citizen of the US government you agree to pay your taxes in order for the government to govern efficiently as it sees fit, with part of its governing obligations being to help alleviate injustices.

Assisting those who were wronged is not entitlement. Stop relying on scare tactics and buzzwords.

No you didn't say I couldn't, so you have an attitude of "fuck you" for no reason? (attempting to get you to explain yourself)

Agreement by default when there is no other option other than go somewhere else and pay higher taxes is not exactly justification. We are talking about fixing a problem.

I don't have to address that because you cannot, through any sane logic, explain how having less than someone else (excluding illegal reasons, as in someone being robbed) is an injustice/ being "wronged".

Your attitude IS as entitlement attitude. If you consider someone calling you on your bullshit a scare tactic I suggest you grow a pair. I did lol at your attempt at defining entitlement as a "buzzword".

 

[zabu of nΩd]

You didn't answer my question. Owning property doesn't necessarily imply pure capitalism

Okay, let me be more clear.

A world in which property rights are protected to the exclusion of public services such as education and health care is not a world in which the best interest of society as a whole is served.

 

[The Ozzman]

Property rights apply for everyone though. I guess I'm not understanding you somewhat, but I think property rights are essential for people to actually feel the need to contribute to society.

 

[Dak]

I suggest those of you in favor of social programs read this,should be on your reading level:

The Little Red Hen

 

[Mort Divine]

Anyone who is against social programs and socialism as a whole is a complete rube.

 

[The Ozzman]

 

[The Ozzman]

Anyone who is against social programs and socialism as a whole is a complete rube.

Do you have an explanation behind why you think that?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I suggest those of you in favor of social programs read this,should be on your reading level:

The Little Red Hen

Wow man, that was really insightful. You sure have all those lazy, worthless poor people figured out.

And you know what? You're right, man. All this nannying by the government is just bullshit. We should just abolish government, and let the world be ruled by those who work hard for power. And if the world ends up as a brutal dictatorship, so fucking what? If people don't like it, they should get off their lazy asses and take it over themselves.