You sure as hell aren't ....or you wouldn't spend so fuckin' much time whinning about the damned Palestinians! Baron Max
Doesn't sound like that's the complaint. Sounds like the complaint is that suddenly all this stuff is being taxed. New York, home of Wall Street and financial center of the world, millionaires walking the streets in crowds, the major immigrant port and built on century old infrastructure with other costly attributes, sends lots of tax money to Washington. Washington sends it to Texas, Arizona, Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, and other traditional Republican strongholds proud of their low taxes and not much else. So when New York runs short, do they raise taxes on the millionaires walking the streets? Do they get a refund from Washington for handling those immigrants?
How many New York businesses will be moving out? They are stuck there...at the worst, anything that can be outsourced will be....other than that the people are stuck...afraid to move to sunny Georgia or Florida....
People won't move out. If people are over taxed they start dodging tax. Semi criminal people become Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Top Cats
No one has the idea of the government feeding, housing and clothing everyone, I think the philosophy in this case is government is suppose to help those who are in trouble get back on their feet, living on government hand outs is not much of a life and is usually attached with the strings that you have to work hard at getting off the hand out system.
Total lack of economic understanding. The more money out there to spend. The more jobs out there to get. You want welfare for those who refuse to work. That is what you and socialist democrats are really saying. Individuals, in general, want control of their lives and their things. Welfare may give, but it robs from the rest to do so. If people really want a better life, they should plead with their government to end all taxes and regulation so more jobs can be created and more people can work. And no, Obama lied, deregulation did not cause the housing crisis and subsequent bailout(s). It was regulation that led to it.
Okay, this post confirmed my previous post. My bad. I should have recognize a argument from a marxist perspective when I read one. Alas, not to worry, your smartass comment notwithstanding, I did catch it.
Not marxist, socialist. Everyone is entitled to healthcare and protection from penury. Its the basis for zakat.
Who gave them that entitlement? What ...just because they were born? And more to the point, who enforces it? Baron Max
Yah that's why you guys have nukes aimed at pakistan with monkeys for generals itching to either press the red button or scratch their ass. Hopefully they won't ever learn how to use toilet paper.
You can't see the difference between the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (all of which require merely that others not interfere or kill you); and the "right" to healthcare, housing, food, education? The later imposes upon others the requirement to supply those things. A naked man in a forest has his life, his liberty, and is free to pursue whatever makes him happy. He will retain those rights unless someone comes along and takes them from him via force. But what of food, shelter, healthcare? Who should our savage see about these things? How should he secure these "rights"? Any "right" that imposes upon someone else the requirement to provide it is not a right but a license to enslave others, to force them to give you that which you are unable or simply too lazy to provide for yourself.
I get very nervous when people start talking about medical services as a "right". It doesn't make sense - technological inventions like vaccines do not bequeath more fundamental rights on people, granting rights that involve the labor of others enslaves those others. On the other hand, failure to supply available medical services to the sick and injured in a society is one of the stupidest and most damaging failures imaginable. There isn't much excuse for it.
In the USA, emergency medical services are available at hospitals all over the country. As to society providing medical services, your statement makes me wonder why you didn't include such things are housing and food? And utilities to keep the house warm? And a car to drive to work? And a job? And any and all of those things necessary for people to live in society? Why did you stop at medical services? Why not extend that same thinking to anything and everything required? Baron Max
Lets use your hypothetical if said savage was mortally wounded and found by a doctor, would it be right for said doctor to not treat the savage and let him die because the savage can't pay? Because some people are pragmatic and not ideological and thus know when to stop a slippery slope.
It would violate the ethics of the doctor to not treat the man, but the man himself has no right to treatment. He is simply the lucky recipient of the good will and charity of the doctor. This is the reason no one is denied care at the emergency room. There's a big difference between a right, and charity. Common human decency demands that we help a person in their hour or need. But saying one has a right to healthcare is demanding much more than that. It is demanding that others become your servants to provide for you your every need. I personally do several eye exams per month for the needy free of charge (they are also provided with free glasses if they need them thru Luxottica). That doesn't mean these people have a right to my services, it simply means I feel it's the right thing to do. One day this month we provided free eye exams and glasses to an entire homeless shelter. Most of them are very thankful for the service and it makes me and my staff feel good to provide it. But occasionally someone will not seem thankful and be complaining about everything we do (there are certain limitations on which frames they can have, etc) When we see a couple people like that in a row, it really makes us wonder if we need to be providing that service. Fortunately, the vast majority are very thankful and we're glad to help them. Can't you see the difference? When I'm pulled over on the side of the road with no cell phone and a dead engine, I have no right to expect help from anyone. But, just as I sometimes stop and give people a jump or a ride when they need one, others may stop and help me out of the goodness of their heart. That's charity. That's being a decent human being. As I believe I have no right to expect such help, when it's offered I always offer to pay the person afterwards. More often than not, they turn me down, and that's fine. I still feel better having made the offer, for having acknowledged that I realize they've done me a service I had no right to expect.
Then let's stop BEFORE we get on that damned slippery slope! Because once we're on it, it ain't so easy to stop the sliding. Which is, of course, exactly the point. Baron Max
The obligation of good will? Good will and charity are extracted as an obligation? Don't get me wrong, that's fine with me in the context of the human endeavor, but if one's "good will and charity" are given as an obligation, is it really "good will and charity"?
