Socialized Healthcare

Rob Roy · Oct 3, 2010

sk'mo said:
Slavery is forced servitude and a slave is personal property. A slave has no recourse. You on the other hand have the right to challenge your government and work as you please in any manner you see fit. The passing and enforcement of laws by a democratically elected government does not slavery make.

Theft is the taking of any possession without permission or authority. In order for a government to operate, in order for a nation to sustain itself, it must levy taxes to fund its endeavours. The government has the authority (Given by the citizenry.) to do this. Ergo, not theft, whether you like it or not. Now, what these endeavours are and how much money is put toward them is up to you and your willingness to participate in the democratic process... Or at least that's the idea, there is no guarantee that things will go your way. Regardless, taxes aren't theft simply because you don't want to pay them.

What recourse does a home owner have if he doesn't support public schools and there is an automatic lien on his home? If taxes aren't paid the home is stolen, the "owner" will ultimately be killed if he doesn't leave "his" home. Slavery is when a person doesn't own themself. Whether a single other person or a group of other persons calling themselves government owns or controls them, if they are unable to own the full product of their labor and their own body then they are at least partially enslaved.

Theft is taking something that is not yours without the owners voluntary uncoerced permission. The granted "authority part" is a fiction. You cannot grant somebody authority over me without my consent, just as I cannot grant another authority over you or your possessions without YOUR consent. Your neighbor or a group of your neighbors cannot grant YOUR consent, only YOU can. If your neighbors can do that, you don't really own anything, the "majority" does.

The idea that a majority can somehow grant authority over a minority that has not initiated aggression is a rationalization and could ultimately be used to justify rape, war and pot laws couldn't it ?

You say in order for a government to exist it must tax. Okay, but that doesn't mean it's existence isn't funded by forced collection of funds does it?

The Mastermind · Oct 3, 2010

Rob Roy said:
The freedom and "right" to enjoy self determination is timeless. You might have a right to healthcare. However, you can't "manufacture" a right to make somebody else do what you or a multitude of "yous" would like or force them to do without swallowing a heavy dose of rationalization pills. Sorry.

After all that and how I go by paragraph to paragraph of most things said, you come back with that? And have we not, timelessly, discussed that not everybody gets what they want out of the democratic process?

sharon1 · Oct 3, 2010

RobRoy.....you're a constitutionalist, are you not?

I am curious. I lean toward that distinction myself, and my son is one as well. Much of what you've posted reminds me of topics he and I have discussed and what I've read.

I have a question for you. Reagrding the last sentence in that last post you made. "You say in order for a government to exist it must tax. Okay, but that doesn't mean it's existence isn't funded by forced collection of funds does it"?

If government must tax to exist...isn't it still up to each individual to decide to live here or not? In other words, isn't it in some way, a fee for living here? If one doesn't want to "pay" the fee/tax, then they are perfectly free to leave this land and choose residence elsewhere?

Rob Roy · Oct 3, 2010

The Mastermind said:
After all that and how I go by paragraph to paragraph of most things said, you come back with that? And have we not, timelessly, discussed that not everybody gets what they want out of the democratic process?

What do you disagree with? Does somebody else own your choices? I don't nor do I want to. I'm glad you admit that not everybody gets what they want out of the democratic process, that is one of it's great flaws. In a voluntary society built on consensual exchange, rather than coercion people have a better chance at "getting what they want". The exception being they must respect others boundaries and not initiate aggression.

Rob Roy · Oct 3, 2010

sharon1 said:
RobRoy.....you're a constitutionalist, are you not?

I am curious. I lean toward that distinction myself, and my son is one as well. Much of what you've posted reminds me of topics he and I have discussed and what I've read.

I have a question for you. Reagrding the last sentence in that last post you made. "You say in order for a government to exist it must tax. Okay, but that doesn't mean it's existence isn't funded by forced collection of funds does it"?

If government must tax to exist...isn't it still up to each individual to decide to live here or not? In other words, isn't it in some way, a fee for living here? If one doesn't want to "pay" the fee/tax, then they are perfectly free to leave this land and choose residence elsewhere?

No I'm not a constitutionalist, but I am familiar with the document and wouldn't mind if the U.S. government paid more attention to following it versus using it for toilet paper. I am a Voluntaryist, I don't believe any entity or manmade government can trump natural right or natural law, if I may say so others will likely come to this point of view in time. Governments come and go, human rights to exist unmolested are timeless. My rights (and yours) don't come from another person or a government.

All governments rely upon force to exist, some do a bit of good but by and large they always rely on force and will ultimately, rob, imprison or kill people for the crime of disobedience even if that person has harmed nobody. That's not the kind of society that I want to live in. Nor do I want to live in a society where people do not own themselves or their property. I believe everybody has a right to exist and nobody has a right to initiate aggression or extort regardless of the title they have given themselves.

Fee for living here? I have no problem paying fees for what I use or fees for others I choose to help. Your "fee for living here" who decides what that fee will be? Is it a voluntary fee to pay for services chosen by individuals or imposed upon them by others?

Click on the weeda claus button in my post and go to the second page on that web site . There is a stick figure video that is titled "the philosophy of liberty" that does a good job of defining my point of view and why.

Merowe · Oct 4, 2010

Rob Roy said:
In a truly unfettered free market, competition would allow the consumer to choose and would bring lower costs. Government prohibition, licensing and regulation creates the unintended consequences of barriers to entering the market, high insurance cost and loss of consumer choice. Take weed for instance, the street prices are artificially high due to government involvement/prohibition.
If medical choices were unencumbered you would see more options and lower costs. Asking the same entity (government) to "solve" a problem that the same entity had a hand in creating won't work. I won't even bore you with any monetary, banking or federal reserve yammering. Trusting in government to solve problems will lead to disappointment.

I think the idea of a 'truly unfettered free market' is a self-serving fiction peddled by the corporate sector. Without regulation any originally 'free' market will tend to monopoly, given the intrinsically competitive structure. You can't compete forever, eventually somebody wins. And they get all the spoils, that is, a consumer with little or no choice. To maintain a competitive 'free' market structure you need fairly particular rules and regulations - which must be enforced. The economic collapse of a couple of years ago is a peerless example of what happens when you roll back too much regulation, in this case the Glass-Steagal Act, brought in after the original crash of '29.

The big fish eat the little fish - and bill the consumer for the multibillion dollar takeover pricetags! - until there are only a few predators left, swimming in sleepy circles and fattening themselves on unprotected consumers. Have I got this part right? Is the American healthcare system anything like this? Isn't that why your system costs twice what it needs to? The foxes have been left alone to mind the henhouse?

In my thinking, the individual citizen is powerless against corporations with assets sometimes exceeding entire nation-states. It is only through collective organizations that they are able to wield any clout, any credible strength or countervailing force and isn't that what government is?

Now, the picture changes if the government system has been corrupted by powerful corporate interests, who are able to hijack it for their own ends, witness Obama-care. Then you have a corporate/government complex and the beginnings of a fascist structure. And then you're in trouble. And that's where I think the United States and a number of other western nations currently are.

Also I think if you deregulate medicine a lot of snake oil will reappear on the market. Caveat Emptor and all that, but do you really want to gamble like that with people's lives, when modern science permits us to make some pretty accurate valuations of different treatments? Some of which are illegal for very good reason?

medicineman · Oct 4, 2010

Rob Roy said:
No I'm not a constitutionalist, but I am familiar with the document and wouldn't mind if the U.S. government paid more attention to following it versus using it for toilet paper. I am a Voluntaryist, I don't believe any entity or manmade government can trump natural right or natural law, if I may say so others will likely come to this point of view in time. Governments come and go, human rights to exist unmolested are timeless. My rights (and yours) don't come from another person or a government.

All governments rely upon force to exist, some do a bit of good but by and large they always rely on force and will ultimately, rob, imprison or kill people for the crime of disobedience even if that person has harmed nobody. That's not the kind of society that I want to live in. Nor do I want to live in a society where people do not own themselves or their property. I believe everybody has a right to exist and nobody has a right to initiate aggression or extort regardless of the title they have given themselves.

Fee for living here? I have no problem paying fees for what I use or fees for others I choose to help. Your "fee for living here" who decides what that fee will be? Is it a voluntary fee to pay for services chosen by individuals or imposed upon them by others?

Click on the weeda claus button in my post and go to the second page on that web site . There is a stick figure video that is titled "the philosophy of liberty" that does a good job of defining my point of view and why.

I will guarantee you that if there were no government, and you had a bundle of wealth, Those destitute beings with no wealth would burn down your mansion, steal all your wealth and you'd basically be living in the land of the bullies. You would have to start your own protection faction and pay people to protect your wealth untill someone smarter and tougher than you killed you and took over. That was the way it was for centuries untill "We the people decided to form a more perfect union" and created a society based on rules and regulations, laws and punisments. A society that needed funding, hence, taxation. I must agree that the system needs some major overhauls, but it allows you to max out your income and pay as little as 15%. 15% of 250K= $37500, more than some people make, but still leaves 212,500 for the tax payer. Now over 250,000, the price to play goes up, 33% going to 39% if the Bush tax cuts expire, but were once 90% under republicans in the '50's. I guess the question must be: How much income is enough?

Rob Roy · Oct 5, 2010

Merowe said:
I think the idea of a 'truly unfettered free market' is a self-serving fiction peddled by the corporate sector. Without regulation any originally 'free' market will tend to monopoly, given the intrinsically competitive structure. You can't compete forever, eventually somebody wins. And they get all the spoils, that is, a consumer with little or no choice. To maintain a competitive 'free' market structure you need fairly particular rules and regulations - which must be enforced. The economic collapse of a couple of years ago is a peerless example of what happens when you roll back too much regulation, in this case the Glass-Steagal Act, brought in after the original crash of '29.

The big fish eat the little fish - and bill the consumer for the multibillion dollar takeover pricetags! - until there are only a few predators left, swimming in sleepy circles and fattening themselves on unprotected consumers. Have I got this part right? Is the American healthcare system anything like this? Isn't that why your system costs twice what it needs to? The foxes have been left alone to mind the henhouse?

In my thinking, the individual citizen is powerless against corporations with assets sometimes exceeding entire nation-states. It is only through collective organizations that they are able to wield any clout, any credible strength or countervailing force and isn't that what government is?

Now, the picture changes if the government system has been corrupted by powerful corporate interests, who are able to hijack it for their own ends, witness Obama-care. Then you have a corporate/government complex and the beginnings of a fascist structure. And then you're in trouble. And that's where I think the United States and a number of other western nations currently are.

Also I think if you deregulate medicine a lot of snake oil will reappear on the market. Caveat Emptor and all that, but do you really want to gamble like that with people's lives, when modern science permits us to make some pretty accurate valuations of different treatments? Some of which are illegal for very good reason?

In a truly free market the outcome isn't always somebody "winning" . The outcome can be mutual satisfaction. The roots of Free trade involve a producer and a consumer coming to an agreement. If the transaction is agreeable to both, isn't it possible both have benefitted? When producers compete, innovation can also bring about better products and more choices.

I think the reason healthcare costs so much is the market is encumbered and an unnecessary element has been added. Prices are not set by the producer and consumers are restricted in their choices. When elements are put between the producer and consumer the muddier the water gets, the more palms must be greased, the fewer choices consumers have.

I agree with you that governments are corrupt. Your solution is to ask them to fix the problems they have created?

If you deregulate medicine, there may be snake oil. There may also be hash oil, hemp oil and algae oil or beneficial products that have yet to be invented.

No, I do not want to gamble with other peoples lives, nor do I want anybody gambling with mine.

Illegal for good reason? Which things are you talking about?

Rob Roy · Oct 5, 2010

medicineman said:
I will guarantee you that if there were no government, and you had a bundle of wealth, Those destitute beings with no wealth would burn down your mansion, steal all your wealth and you'd basically be living in the land of the bullies. You would have to start your own protection faction and pay people to protect your wealth untill someone smarter and tougher than you killed you and took over. That was the way it was for centuries untill "We the people decided to form a more perfect union" and created a society based on rules and regulations, laws and punisments. A society that needed funding, hence, taxation. I must agree that the system needs some major overhauls, but it allows you to max out your income and pay as little as 15%. 15% of 250K= $37500, more than some people make, but still leaves 212,500 for the tax payer. Now over 250,000, the price to play goes up, 33% going to 39% if the Bush tax cuts expire, but were once 90% under republicans in the '50's. I guess the question must be: How much income is enough?

How much income is enough? I can live on very little and often do. Needs and wants are subjective. As long as you haven't obtained your wealth aided by theft or fraud make as much or as little as you want.

"We the people" didn't decide anything. A minority of rich white land owners did.

The system relies on deception, fiat money, fraud and coercion. The intricacies of what they "allow" me to do don't matter to me. If other people are making decisions about my life that I cannot object to without being subjected to force how perfect is that union?

Rob Roy · Oct 5, 2010

ginjawarrior said:
i notice you keep using the term "money" rather than my "collected twigs and berries"
or even "gold"
next time you break out your wallet think about what you are agreeing to each and every time you use "money" by being part of the system you cannot stand back and cry "slavery" its only when you remove yourself from system compleatly that you are able to

How does a peaceful person "remove themselves completely" without government applying force to them? Eating the food they feed you in jail is not an endorsement of jail, it is a decison to stay alive. Using federal reserve notes is not an endorsement of the phony money scam, it is a nasty habit that can be hard to break,for several reasons, some products are unavailable unless you give them dead president paper and the purveyors of the scam will use force if they catch you using "twigs and berries" as a medium of exchange. I understand and practice agorism as much as I can.

You seem to deny my definition of slavery. Okay. If you are not a "slave", would you at least admit you are prevented from owning your own body, your labor and your property in some fashion by an outside entity that threatens force if you do not comply? I'd really like to hear your thoughts on that in a direct reply.

trishmybiscuits · Oct 8, 2010

I agree with what the Unintimidated Press said about ObamaCare, that it makes all Americans slaves to the health care sector and that Obama will go down as the first president to reintroduce a form of slavery to the United States:

http://www.unintimidatedpress.com/slaves.htm

londonfog · Oct 9, 2010

trishmybiscuits said:
I agree with what the Unintimidated Press said about ObamaCare, that it makes all Americans slaves to the health care sector and that Obama will go down as the first president to reintroduce a form of slavery to the United States:

http://www.unintimidatedpress.com/slaves.htm

what a joke...!!!! Well I guess you were slave long before Obama or do you not pay car insurance...?????

Parker · Oct 9, 2010

londonfog said:
what a joke...!!!! Well I guess you were slave long before Obama or do you not pay car insurance...?????

You're analogy is worse. You are not forced to pay auto insurance if you do not drive. Some states just require you show that you meet the financial responsibility to pay.

Rob Roy · Oct 9, 2010

londonfog said:
what a joke...!!!! Well I guess you were slave long before Obama or do you not pay car insurance...?????

I don't understand, you give another example of how government forces people to buy something under the threat of violence...that example bolsters the "slavery" argument of the person you disagree with doesn't it? Simply by pointing to other ways they fuck people over with their "or else" threats does not justify the things they are trying to add.

Just because they get away with one thing doesn't mean it was right or license them to continue the onslaught does it?

Fact is, you don't own yourself, or your wallet or your property. Do you deny this?

Parker · Oct 9, 2010

Rob Roy said:
What recourse does a home owner have if he doesn't support public schools and there is an automatic lien on his home? If taxes aren't paid the home is stolen, the "owner" will ultimately be killed if he doesn't leave "his" home. Slavery is when a person doesn't own themself. Whether a single other person or a group of other persons calling themselves government owns or controls them, if they are unable to own the full product of their labor and their own body then they are at least partially enslaved.

Theft is taking something that is not yours without the owners voluntary uncoerced permission. The granted "authority part" is a fiction. You cannot grant somebody authority over me without my consent, just as I cannot grant another authority over you or your possessions without YOUR consent. Your neighbor or a group of your neighbors cannot grant YOUR consent, only YOU can. If your neighbors can do that, you don't really own anything, the "majority" does.

The idea that a majority can somehow grant authority over a minority that has not initiated aggression is a rationalization and could ultimately be used to justify rape, war and pot laws couldn't it ?

You say in order for a government to exist it must tax. Okay, but that doesn't mean it's existence isn't funded by forced collection of funds does it?

This is what government does. Ineffective and wasteful. They do not set people up for success. At the end of the day one should be secure in the knowledge that no matter how bad things get, since they paid off their house, they'd have a roof over their head. Just doing away with the Appraisal department of the local government would save people money.
Why not pass the costs to the ones who actually use the things these taxes are paid for? Instead money is stolen and people are threatened with eviction.
Force and coercion is not how we evolve as a society.

londonfog · Oct 9, 2010

Rob Roy said:
I don't understand, you give another example of how government forces people to buy something under the threat of violence...that example bolsters the "slavery" argument of the person you disagree with doesn't it? Simply by pointing to other ways they fuck people over with their "or else" threats does not justify the things they are trying to add.

Just because they get away with one thing doesn't mean it was right or license them to continue the onslaught does it?

Fact is, you don't own yourself, or your wallet or your property. Do you deny this?

No what I'm saying is in life somethings you have to pay for...Now on the point of whether or not I own myself...I learned a long time ago the one thing that man can not take away from me is my education and my thoughts...the other $hit he can have for with those two I will get more.

Parker · Oct 9, 2010

londonfog said:
No what I'm saying is in life somethings you have to pay for...Now on the point of whether or not I own myself...I learned a long time ago the one thing that man can not take away from me is my education and my thoughts...the other $hit he can have for with those two I will get more.

you know what bro? You have allowed yourself, as have others, to be swindled by the government. Why WOULD you stand idly by and allow people or the government to take things from you?

Rob Roy · Oct 9, 2010

londonfog said:
No what I'm saying is in life somethings you have to pay for...Now on the point of whether or not I own myself...I learned a long time ago the one thing that man can not take away from me is my education and my thoughts...the other $hit he can have for with those two I will get more.

Absolutely some things in life a person should have to pay for. For instance those things that they use of their own accord and that they willingly purchase in a consensual transaction with another. However, I'm not satisfied with simply owning my thoughts, I want to own my body, my labor and my property.

The "other shit" he can't have from me if he uses force or asks another entity to do it on his behalf. If YOU want to give up your life, liberty or property that is your choice, but it isn't and shouldn't be your choice to give up those things for another or ask government to take those things from another.

londonfog · Oct 9, 2010

ok Parker and Rob Roy you two talk the talk but what are you doing to stop whats you say is happening to you....When did the Government take you life, liberty, and property..or are you just bitching just to bitch

Rob Roy · Oct 9, 2010

londonfog said:
ok Parker and Rob Roy you two talk the talk but what are you doing to stop whats you say is happening to you....When did the Government take you life, liberty, and property..or are you just bitching just to bitch

I'll see your pair of aces and raise you a felony manufacturing charge.

Socialized Healthcare

Well-Known Member

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member