Should people without health insurance, etc. be allowed to die?

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Just the opposite! Those comments are all related to how money is taken from the individual. What is done with it afterward is beside the point. It is already Ill-gotten.

 

No amount of "middle ground" can ever make plunder acceptable. One either consents to the proposition or they don't. If you don't agree, I could use a few bucks. Where can I meet you to pick it up?

[Sepherose]

Just the opposite! Those comments are all related to how money is taken from the individual. What is done with it afterward is beside the point. It is already Ill-gotten.

 

No amount of "middle ground" can ever make plunder acceptable. One either consents to the proposition or they don't. If you don't agree, I could use a few bucks. Where can I meet you to pick it up?

 

Like I stated earlier: You filled out a W-4 form when you got your job, meaning you signed away those taxes of your own volition and choice. You could have refused to sign and not gotten the job, but you obviously didn't therefore your money isn't being stolen or taken against your will in any way shape or form. You signed away on it. If you don't want it taken, then get another job and refuse to sign your W-4, see how far you get. Like you have reiterated time and again, it's all about choice, but you have also avoided responding to anything related to people that haven't had a choice about their situation. A middle ground could easily be something like this: A flat tax hitting everyone's income by a set percentage, corporations included because they are legally people, or a set sales tax nation-wide would probably suit your ideal more closely, as you said a sales tax gives you the choice. Another interesting thing to note about sales tax is that even if people are panhandling, they still pay it so they are still paying into the system, and the money they are using was given of another person own choice. Would that suit your ideal better, or not? With all your arguments to this point, I honestly don't see why it wouldn't.

[kvnchrist]

Just the opposite! Those comments are all related to how money is taken from the individual. What is done with it afterward is beside the point. It is already Ill-gotten.

 

No amount of "middle ground" can ever make plunder acceptable. One either consents to the proposition or they don't. If you don't agree, I could use a few bucks. Where can I meet you to pick it up?

 

Not much, just a constitutional amendment

 

 

16th Amendment

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Just the opposite! Those comments are all related to how money is taken from the individual. What is done with it afterward is beside the point. It is already Ill-gotten.

 

No amount of "middle ground" can ever make plunder acceptable. One either consents to the proposition or they don't. If you don't agree, I could use a few bucks. Where can I meet you to pick it up?

 

Like I stated earlier: You filled out a W-4 form when you got your job, meaning you signed away those taxes of your own volition and choice. You could have refused to sign and not gotten the job, but you obviously didn't therefore your money isn't being stolen or taken against your will in any way shape or form. You signed away on it. If you don't want it taken, then get another job and refuse to sign your W-4, see how far you get. Like you have reiterated time and again, it's all about choice, but you have also avoided responding to anything related to people that haven't had a choice about their situation. A middle ground could easily be something like this: A flat tax hitting everyone's income by a set percentage, corporations included because they are legally people, or a set sales tax nation-wide would probably suit your ideal more closely, as you said a sales tax gives you the choice. Another interesting thing to note about sales tax is that even if people are panhandling, they still pay it so they are still paying into the system, and the money they are using was given of another person own choice. Would that suit your ideal better, or not? With all your arguments to this point, I honestly don't see why it wouldn't.

Yes, I did, but UHC is another tax on top of that that I have no choice about. *I have no choice to not participate in the scheme*. If I did, there would be no debate. I would opt out and be done with it. That's the issue. It amounts to a tax on being alive.

Yes, I would be fine with a national sales tax. I said that about 10 pages ago. Exempt certain foods and basic necessities from it to give the poor a break, and I think you have the perfect tax.

 

 

Just the opposite! Those comments are all related to how money is taken from the individual. What is done with it afterward is beside the point. It is already Ill-gotten.

 

No amount of "middle ground" can ever make plunder acceptable. One either consents to the proposition or they don't. If you don't agree, I could use a few bucks. Where can I meet you to pick it up?

 

Not much, just a constitutional amendment

 

 

16th Amendment

 

If my position is that legal and illegal have no relation to right and wrong, why would the 16th amendment, or any amendment, be relevant to me?

 

Slavery was once legal. Was it moral then?

Not seeing your point.

[kvnchrist]

Just the opposite! Those comments are all related to how money is taken from the individual. What is done with it afterward is beside the point. It is already Ill-gotten.

 

No amount of "middle ground" can ever make plunder acceptable. One either consents to the proposition or they don't. If you don't agree, I could use a few bucks. Where can I meet you to pick it up?

 

Like I stated earlier: You filled out a W-4 form when you got your job, meaning you signed away those taxes of your own volition and choice. You could have refused to sign and not gotten the job, but you obviously didn't therefore your money isn't being stolen or taken against your will in any way shape or form. You signed away on it. If you don't want it taken, then get another job and refuse to sign your W-4, see how far you get. Like you have reiterated time and again, it's all about choice, but you have also avoided responding to anything related to people that haven't had a choice about their situation. A middle ground could easily be something like this: A flat tax hitting everyone's income by a set percentage, corporations included because they are legally people, or a set sales tax nation-wide would probably suit your ideal more closely, as you said a sales tax gives you the choice. Another interesting thing to note about sales tax is that even if people are panhandling, they still pay it so they are still paying into the system, and the money they are using was given of another person own choice. Would that suit your ideal better, or not? With all your arguments to this point, I honestly don't see why it wouldn't.

Yes, I did, but UHC is another tax on top of that that I have no choice about. *I have no choice to not participate in the scheme*. If I did, there would be no debate. I would opt out and be done with it. That's the issue. It amounts to a tax on being alive.

Yes, I would be fine with a national sales tax. I said that about 10 pages ago. Exempt certain foods and basic necessities from it to give the poor a break, and I think you have the perfect tax.

 

 

Just the opposite! Those comments are all related to how money is taken from the individual. What is done with it afterward is beside the point. It is already Ill-gotten.

 

No amount of "middle ground" can ever make plunder acceptable. One either consents to the proposition or they don't. If you don't agree, I could use a few bucks. Where can I meet you to pick it up?

 

Not much, just a constitutional amendment

 

 

16th Amendment

 

If my position is that legal and illegal have no relation to right and wrong, why would the 16th amendment, or any amendment, be relevant to me?

 

Slavery was once legal. Was it moral then?

Not seeing your point.

 

 

Morals are a personal thing. Everybody has them and none match any others. Yours seems to be very simple. Screw everybody else. that are less fortunate That to me is immoral. Slavery means you are trapped and using that is a logical fallacy.n You are only a slave to yourself. To all your other arguments there is U-Haul. You don't like taxes or participating in society. Move up in the wilderness,. Live as a hermit.

 

 

You live in a society, you sometimes have to give up things you don't want to. As for me, I don't like the idea of the government forcing it's citizens to buy HC, but i'd be willing to bet they have an agreement with the health insurance companies and that's why they're pushing that. This plan was not thought out, but thrown together to satisfy a campaign pledge.

[Ghogiel]

Slavery was once legal. Was it moral then?

 

In many cases yes. Morality is not an absolute. In some cases it was seen as a god given right. But in your moral code, or even most of the world today, it would be a no.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

 

You live in a society, you sometimes have to give up things you don't.

 

Not is a so-called "free" society.

 

I suggest you give this a read. This guy and I see pretty well eye to eye.

 

http://www.deuceofclubs.com/p/freedom.htm

Edited September 20, 2011 by Quetzlsacatanango

[kvnchrist]

 

You live in a society, you sometimes have to give up things you don't.

 

Not is a so-called "free" society.

 

 

Freedom is pipe dream. There are three types of free people.

 

(1) Those in insane asylums, that are so gone they don't know they are in a cage.

 

(2) Those that have enough money and power to buy their freedom.

 

(3) The dead.

 

I don't debate links. I can find links on the internet that says just about anything under the sun.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

You can post your platitudes all day long if you want. I feel bad for you if that's what you really think.

I am just waiting for one of these pro-UHC people to explain to me

 

1) why they feel justified in other people paying for their medical care, a.k.a. why they have the right to other peoples' money that they didn't earn

2) why i should be forced to join the scheme if I don't want to.

 

No one has yet done such a thing besides saying that I'm mean if I don't want to help sick people when that is not the issue at all.

[kvnchrist]

You can post your platitudes all day long if you want. I feel bad for you if that's what you really think.

 

As far as you calling my posts platitudes. This is another form of name calling. There is a great quote from a grand lady who dealt with this by saying

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

Margaret Thatcher

 

I am just waiting for one of these pro-UHC people to explain to me

 

1) why they feel justified in other people paying for their medical care, a.k.a. why they have the right to other peoples' money that they didn't earn

2) why i should be forced to join the scheme if I don't want to.

 

No one has yet done such a thing besides saying that I'm mean if I don't want to help sick people when that is not the issue at all.

 

They have. Over and over, but you dismiss them as you tried to dismiss mine by calling them Platitudes. This fact speaks volumes about how highly you hold others views.