• Study: Trump healthcare plan would end coverage for 21M and cost about $270 billion over 10 years.
    77 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sgman91;49946373]Those rights are negative, not positive rights. It guarantees that no one can take your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, not that the government is required to give you life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.[/QUOTE] Poverty and excess medical costs obviously get in the way of those, so if they're being taken away it's time for the government to step in and help try to stop that.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49947134]Poverty and excess medical costs obviously get in the way of those, so if they're being taken away it's time for the government to step in and help try to stop that.[/QUOTE] The key is people taking it from you. The founders obviously felt, for example, that the federal government shouldn't have anything to do with relieving poverty or a lack of food, which is probably the biggest impediment to life. If you feel that government should do those things, then that's fine. It just seems silly to try and pretend that the founding documents give any credence to your beliefs. You believe differently than the founders, and that's OK.
The country was founded on those ideals, I never said they had the same beliefs as me. I said that it's ridiculous in a country founded on those ideals we consistently prevent people from achieving those ideals.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49947217]The country was founded on those ideals, I never said they had the same beliefs as me. I said that it's ridiculous in a country founded on those ideals we consistently prevent people from achieving those ideals.[/QUOTE] ... but it wasn't founded on the ideals you're espousing. It was founded on the ideals that no person or government should be able to come along and take away your right to those thing (without due cause as Silence accurately pointed out). You're just taking the words without context and putting your own personal interpretation to them. There's a fundamental difference between actively "preventing" an action and not actively providing for it, but you seem to be treating them as equivalents. You can't actively "prevent" something by not taking any action at all. At most you're just not providing it to them.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49947170]The key is people taking it from you. The founders obviously felt, for example, that the federal government shouldn't have anything to do with relieving poverty or a lack of food, which is probably the biggest impediment to life. If you feel that government should do those things, then that's fine. It just seems silly to try and pretend that the founding documents give any credence to your beliefs. You believe differently than the founders, and that's OK.[/QUOTE] Why do American's treat the founding fathers like some sort of unquestionable gods? They were a bunch of men (fairly rich men might I add) from over 200 years ago back when the majority of the world still had kings, why should what they believed be seen as unquestionable?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49948902]Why do American's treat the founding fathers like some sort of unquestionable gods? They were a bunch of men (fairly rich men might I add) from over 200 years ago back when the majority of the world still had kings, why should what they believed be seen as unquestionable?[/QUOTE] Who also clearly didn't believe the words they wrote in respect to "All men are created equal"
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49948902]Why do American's treat the founding fathers like some sort of unquestionable gods? They were a bunch of men (fairly rich men might I add) from over 200 years ago back when the majority of the world still had kings, why should what they believed be seen as unquestionable?[/QUOTE] I honestly don't know if people read what I write or just assume they know what I mean. The guy tried to use the Declaration of Independance as backup for his point. I responded with why the Declaration doesn't back up his point. Nothing I said had anything at all to do with whether we should follow what they meant 100% of the time. My point was about the positive facts about the meaning of the Declaration, not the normative beliefs on what is good and what is not good.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49948967]I honestly don't know if people read what I write or just assume they know what I mean. The guy tried to use the Declaration of Independance as backup for his point. I responded with why the Declaration doesn't back up his point. Nothing I said had anything at all to do with whether we should follow what they meant 100% of the time. My point was about the positive facts about the meaning of the Declaration, not the normative beliefs on what is good and what is not good.[/QUOTE] I'm going to spell this out one last time since you seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills. This country was [I]founded[/I] on the ideals of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Why then does it seem there are so many road blocks actively placed by citizenry and politicians and corporations against those? Why does the government do nothing? I cited the god damn Declaration because it's the document that this fucking country was founded on lays out the ideals that this new nation was supposed to be representative of. Yet we can't seem to live up to those representations.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49949014]I'm going to spell this out one last time since you seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills. This country was [I]founded[/I] on the ideals of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Why then does it seem [B]there are so many road blocks actively placed[/B] by citizenry and politicians and corporations against those? Why does the [B]government do nothing[/B]? I cited the god damn Declaration because it's the document that this fucking country was founded on lays out the ideals that this new nation was supposed to be representative of. Yet we can't seem to live up to those representations.[/QUOTE] Those are inherently contradictory things. No one is actively placing road blocks by doing nothing. People can't take things from you by doing nothing.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49949048]Those are inherently contradictory things. No one is actively placing road blocks by doing nothing.[/QUOTE] When you're in a position of power (ie the government) doing nothing is as good as helping it along. When you have the power to stop something, but don't, you are enabling it. And you conveniently the second half of that sentence, roadblocks placed by not just the government - but by citizens and corporations alike. So by opposing actual god damn health care reform that will bring down medical costs, you are taking away people's right to life because those individuals who can not afford life saving medication, or a surgery, or any medical expenses will die because of greed and an unwillingness to help out their fellow god damn man. It's like saying the British Government and farmers played no role in the Irish Potato Famine - considering that Ireland was exporting far more crops and livestock and butter in those years than prior - but it was too damn expensive for the population. People had a way to help stop that famine, but they did nothing. So by your logic, those people were not killed because of greed. When in reality their lives could have been saved.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49949072]When you're in a position of power (ie the government) doing nothing is as good as helping it along. When you have the power to stop something, but don't, you are enabling it.[/QUOTE] So the government not providing free health insurance is as good as helping a person die? If you believe that, then I guess we just fundamentally disagree. Here are some other examples: - A large corporation not offering you a job is not the same as them actively making you poor. - A rich person not giving to charity is not the same as actively making people poor. - A bystander not saving you from someone attacking you is not the same as them actually attacking you. Where do you draw the line where not preventing something is the same as doing it yourself? [QUOTE]And you conveniently the second half of that sentence, roadblocks placed by not just the government - but by citizens and corporations alike.[/QUOTE] Give me an example. I can't respond to vague comments. [editline]16th March 2016[/editline] Let me clarify by saying that you can definitely make an argument for the government getting involved in health insurance, but I don't believe you can do so on the basis of negative rights.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49949100]So the government not providing free health insurance is as good as helping a person die? If you believe that, then I guess we just fundamentally disagree.[/quote] Yes it is. The government is in a position to help people who need it, but it doesn't. People have been actively fighting against health care reform, meaningful reform. People have died because they can't access proper healthcare, and yet you act as if their deaths weren't caused by a broken system that people have consistently fought to keep. It's disgusting, those individuals have more than certainly enabled those deaths. [QUOTE=sgman91;49949100]- A large corporation not offering you a job is not the same as them actively making you poor.[/quote] No I'd argue that not proving a living wage and benefits (paid sick days, parental leave, etc...) to workers is actively making them poor. [QUOTE=sgman91;49949100]- A rich person not giving to charity is not the same as actively making people poor.[/quote] There's no way to even respond to this since it's not even related. Unless that charity is pocketing that money for themselves or attempting to help african warlords train children, then it's a force of good and a way to help others. [QUOTE=sgman91;49949100]- A bystander not saving you from someone attacking you is not the same as them actually attacking you.[/quote] If they don't attempt to do anything, call the cops, shout "Hey, what are you doing!", they don't do anything but stand there and gawk or just silently slither away, then hell yes they are helping to enable that behavior.
You ignored the most important question in my post: Where do you draw the line where not preventing something is the same as doing it yourself? Or in other words: Where do you draw the line between negative and positive rights? [editline]16th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=bdd458;49949179]If they don't attempt to do anything, call the cops, shout "Hey, what are you doing!", they don't do anything but stand there and gawk or just silently slither away, then hell yes they are helping to enable that behavior.[/QUOTE] Just to be clear: you feel that a person who stands without doing anything should be prosecuted for the same thing as the person committing the crime, then?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49949197]You ignored the most important question in my post: Where do you draw the line where not preventing something is the same as doing it yourself?[/QUOTE] When you're in a position to [I]actively[/I] prevent something from happening, and you don't. I am in 0 position for example to actively help starving children in Africa due to distance, and money, and language barriers among various other factors. I can't actually do anything so I can't be at any state of fault. What I am in a position to do for example is to help stop my University's administration from closing down an art gallery as they cite "budget cuts", but are just pocketing the money themselves. If I did nothing to help try to keep the gallery open, and it does end up closing come July - then I would partly be to blame. By sitting around and doing nothing, when I could have actively changed that or hell even campaigned on behalf of the University, and then going "oh well sucks its closed wish it hadn't" when I had more than ample opportunity to do something, then the blame does partly lie on me. [QUOTE=sgman91;49949197]Just to be clear: you feel that a person who stands without doing anything should be prosecuted for the same thing as the person committing the crime, then?[/QUOTE] Again, the reading comprehension. Enable: to make (someone or something) able to do or to be something; to make (something) possible, practical, or easy; to cause (a feature or capability of a computer) to be active or available for use. So by standing there, you would not be punished - but you sure as hell [I]enabled[/I] it to happen. And that better rest on your soul and change you to actively care for your fellow man.
I refuse to agree with that kind of logic. You are just as much in a position to help starving children in Africa as you are to partake in any other endeavor, it's a matter of priorities and ease, and it's not currently the U.S. governments job to provide everyone within it's border with life saving healthcare. I don't agree with that, and I want it to change, but that's simply how it is at this time.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49949265]I refuse to agree with that kind of logic. You are just as much in a position to help starving children in Africa as you are to partake in any other endeavor, it's a matter of priorities and ease, and it's not currently the U.S. governments job to provide everyone within it's border with life saving healthcare. I don't agree with that, and I want it to change, but that's simply how it is at this time.[/QUOTE] How could I be in a position to help starving kids in Africa, when again there are multiple barriers preventing me from actually helping them? There are many things in my community which I could help with, but I don't. I'm not trying to absolve myself of any sort of blame here, to be some sort of paragon of virtue. But there comes a point when you're in a position to do something, and you don't, you continue to enable the system and only cause more suffering.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49949280]How could I be in a position to help starving kids in Africa, when again there are multiple barriers preventing me from actually helping them?[/QUOTE] Nothing stops you from donating? [url=https://www.savethechildren.org.za/get-involved/volunteer-opportunities]Nothing stops you from volunteering to help them with a foreign aid group?[/url] Is it harder? Absolutely. Can you do it? You bet you can! Your logic doesn't work because the only difference is that one has different "barriers". Just like the U.S. Government doesn't have the available laws in place or funds to support what you're saying they have to do, and blaming them for the deaths of other people due to their lack of action. You're logic that failing to prevent something is the same as doing it is simply feel-good bullshit, it doesn't actually workout that way because it doesn't make any sense because at some point you're going to have to draw a line about what you have to prioritize doing based on your ability to get shit done. The Government has no legal basis nor the budget allowance to do what you're asking for.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49949251]Again, the reading comprehension. Enable: to make (someone or something) able to do or to be something; to make (something) possible, practical, or easy; to cause (a feature or capability of a computer) to be active or available for use. So by standing there, you would not be punished - but you sure as hell [I]enabled[/I] it to happen. And that better rest on your soul and change you to actively care for your fellow man.[/QUOTE] You're not being very consistent. Earlier you said: [QUOTE]When you're in a position of power (ie the government) doing nothing is as good as helping it along. When you have the power to stop something, but don't, you are enabling it. [/QUOTE] You seemed to equate "enable" with being "as good as helping it along." You also answer my question of where to draw the line as: [QUOTE]When you're in a position to [I]actively prevent something from happening, and you don't.[/I][/QUOTE] So you said that the line where not preventing something is the same as doing it yourself is when you can prevent it, but don't. That would mean that a person who is able to stop a robbery, but doesn't, is morally equivilent to the person actually committing the robbery. That would logically lead to the conclusion that we should prosecute the person who allowed it to happen equally to the person who did it themselves.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.