Comments for Conservative Attacks Health Care Reform by Saying "Next They'll Want Food" »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 5 months, 2 weeks ago in Political NewsThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. in 1948, states the following:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Apparently, conservatives may not agree.
Read Full Story at snafu-ed.blogspot.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 113
-
100%
cleare5 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the first job of any government --- any type, any size, any time; is to see to the well-being of the people that support it.
Reply
that means access to fresh water, nutritious food, shelter, education and health care.
i'm not saying government has to provide it all, but it does have an obligation to make sure it's citizens have equal and fair access.-
80%
MisterX5 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Problem: If it can be exploited, it will be.
Reply
How many scandals did the UN see that involved dispersing food, medical aid, and security?
If the economy keeps going in it's current direction, we will only be too happy to get a basic standard of living.-
-
-
Neutral
gwhiddon5 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
it can be exploited when it is "free".
Reply
I have a hunch when health care is "free", there will be many, many people who will abuse the system by refusing to do anything to take care of themselves.
That would completely overload the system, and I for one would consider that abuse.-
100%
Tangent0015 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I have a hunch when health care is "free", there will be many, many people who will abuse the system by refusing to do anything to take care of themselves."
Reply
Do you have any data to back that up? As I understand the statistics from countries that have implemented some form of social medicine, the mean health of the population has improved. Obesity rates have declined, life expectancy has increased, infant mortality decreased, etc.
My health care is mostly covered by my employer, the remainder comes out of my paycheck, so it's effectively 'free'. Yet I go to the doctor when I'm feeling ill and get regular checkups.
Your 'hunch' notwithstanding, the system is overloaded now, much of it by people using emergency rooms as their primary source of care. As you well know, the emergency room is the single most expensive and error-prone environment for medical care, particularly for something that could have been easily taken care of by a family doctor before it became critical.
-
-
100%
MisterX5 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let's see, if I'm a lawmaker, and if I get some gratuity (campaign funds?) from drug company "A" over in the nation of Bumfulland, I would probably push for company "A"s drugs to be used in treating people, although company "B" drugs are manufactured in the US and are much more effective.
Reply
Howabout the gov decides they need some extra money for other projects, say, build an aircraft carrier? They could dip into the healthcare budget. I would say that it already happened with Social Security.
Individuals making malicious claims are the least of our worries.
Nothing is ever free. We will pay for it, one way or another.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
canadianrancher575 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can understand why countries would sign on to the declaration of human rights. To maintain a relatively peaceful country or world people must to some degree be happy with their lives, people around the world have different standards ofr what makes them happy, people in most third world countries are happy if they have food, but as societies become more advanced it seems that demands seem to increase. Canada and the US plus some of the European countries started of as counties that were relatively free from socialist ideas but as these societies advanced there were demands for even simple things like roads and many other things, these things had to be paid for by the people of the countries. As society demanded more from government the cost became larger to the taxpayer which left the taxpayer with less money, which in turn led to more demands on government, which led to more demands for taxes. The debt in the US has really grown in the last little while (2000 onward) because of a reduction in taxes but an expanding government beaurocracy, the move toward a health care plan is because people don't feel that they can afford insurance but if a health care plan starts then it will be more taxes and maybe food will be the next item. Part of the cause is not only taxes but the fact that over 90 percent of the wealth is in about 5 percent of the populations hands, if the truely wealthy are afraid of socialism they are going to have to make changes.
Reply -
67%
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The "right to food" is an argument used by people who believe everyone has an inherent right to be fed. Sounds good on the surface, but a closer examination reveals that this line of thinking is based on the fallacy that the ends can justify the means.
Reply
We use this line of reasoning to justify all sorts of dysfunctional actions. For example, the last administration used torture as a method to try and guarantee freedom and security. Supporters of their methodology said it was "worth it." To them, the ends justified the means.
Similarly, just a few hundred years ago proponents of slavery argued their case for it: "How else are we going to tend to the farm??" To them, the ends of survival justified the means of slavery.
So it is, and so it was. But this time around, the more altruistic-sounding man asks a very similar question. People ask themselves, "how else are we going to feed those who starve?"
Their answer? Slavery of course.
But they don't like to call it slavery, so they change the semantics around to avoid the ugly connotations associated with that word. But merely changing the words around does not change the action, it merely allows us to justify it in our minds. Much like the doublespeak that allowed people to argue that waterboarding was not torture -- it was an "enhanced interrogation technique," right? (That has a more compassionate ring to it.)
The most inherent God-given right of them all is your liberty and freedom. You own your body and only your body. This means that your most unalienable right is that you cannot make somebody do something for you, any more that they can make you do something for them. The great thing about this strange idea of liberty, is that you don't even have to believe in God to hold this truth to be self-evident.
It just is.-
100%
Beau78905 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those who would deny a basic level of healthcare--and yes, food--to those who can't afford it are guilty of exactly the fallacy you speak of, tadair: thinking the ends justify the means.
Reply
The basic argument so-called conservatives make is this: People need to learn to provide for themselves, and no one should be forced to pay for subsistence level care for the poorest individuals in society. If that means some die from neglect and poverty, so be it:
The ends justify the means.-
50%
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i can see that you believe that the means of theft and slavery justifies the means of providing healthcare and food. but if you would like to see healthcare and food provided to those who do not have healthcare and food, then you might, instead, consider educating people and/or asking them, personally. these two actions do not infringe upon our natural human rights, and therefore do not lead to unintended consequences.
Reply
on the other hand, people who would justify taking money by force always find themselves unwittingly advocating altruistic-slavery and altruistic-theft.
i can understand how you feel. but if you look at the matter closer, then you are going about it in a way that runs contrary to the very essence of what you are trying to protect.-
75%
Beau78905 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Give me a break. Calling it theft and slavery is a tremendously overstated way of describing taxation and you know it. If not, you'd abolish all taxes to pay for anything government does. By your reasoning, allowing any taxes of any kind is theft and slavery--the ends justifying the means, right?
Reply-
50%
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Like I mentioned above, "merely changing the words around does not change the action, it merely allows us to justify it in our minds."
Reply
slavery was a terrible thing. but in today's political correct society, we tend to pretend it still doesn't exist.
slavery is non-ownership of one’s Person and Labor. It is involuntary servitude. A slave must work under a whip, real or figurative, wielded by other persons with no say or how. It is a one-way contract he cannot opt out of. A slave is tied to his master and he cannot simply stop paying if he doesn't like it.
In short:
we labor involuntarily for at least four months out of every year for the government.
We are, therefore, slaves for that period of time.
read this short article: Tax Slavery, by Tibor R. Machan at http://mises.org/story/410-
60%
Beau78905 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you support the government's ability to levy taxes or not?
Reply
If so, then as I mentioned above, by your own logic you support theft and slavery.
If not, government dies off, meaning you want to abolish government. You support anarchy.
Take your pick. Slavery (your defnition) or anarchy?-
50%
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
that is a false dichotomy
Reply
first thing you have to remember is that government *is* people. that is, government is made up of the same humans that enfeeble all institutions. so because of this fact anarchy is impossible (at our current levels of enlightenment). here is why:
suppose you have 100 people on a lawless island, the moment 2 people agree on something, then right there you already have a cooperative form of government in action. so, the idea of anarchy cannot exist since people are always going to agree on things. that is a given.
so it is not a matter of government versus absolute non-government. rather, it is a matter of libertarian government versus tyrannical government. tyrannical government is born when a few of the islanders start infringing on the liberties of the other islanders. a government that protects liberty does not.
so i choose non-tyrannical government. that is my pick.-
100%
Candida5 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tadair919: "so it is not a matter of government versus absolute non-government. rather, it is a matter of libertarian government versus tyrannical government."
Reply
What does a libertarian government use for money? Does it need any and where does it get it?-
100%
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
-
100%
Candida5 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
by producing!!! how do you get money? you work for it. if we want steel to build a railroad, we buy it from the steel guys. money is just a unit of trade. if we want tea and gunpowder from china, we trade for whatever we got. we grew up in a very resource abundant country. the industrial revolution is another example of how we benefited greatly from productivity and efficiency.
Reply-
-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the government is made up of people. the people always produce things. all the time. even now, you are using the internet which is a service provided you for profit. you pay for this by providing services to other people. everybody is jointly making a profit and doing with it whatever they want.
Reply-
Neutral
Candida5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Right, and the government gets part of that profit by taxing people. The government may make profit itself only if it owns companies, like in communist counties, or in some countries like Canada where the government owned, at least for a while, companies like Petro Canada, or the Ontario Government that owns the Ontario Liquor Control Board and sells all the liquor in Ontario. Can a libertarian government own companies? Isn't that an anathema to free-wheeling capitalism?
Reply
No ownership + no taxes = no money for the government-
-
Neutral
Candida5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't know. Perhaps the states contributed to the federal government. Perhaps it was from property taxes or from duties. Selling land? Selling prospecting rights? Charitable donations??? They must have got some money from somewhere.
Reply
Do you support state ownership of companies?-
-
-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
government doesn't trade. the people did. it was the people's wealth and private industry that created America from 1776 to 1913 (to the large extent.) government did have programs that they collected in sales tax and real-estate tax, along the way. but this is not what built america
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i'm glad you asked. thats the philosophy behined a constitutional republic versus the philosophy of a strict democracy. in a democracy. 99 or even 51 percent of the people can enslave the rest. in a constitutional republic, one that binds the powers that be, the majority still cannot strip away your most basic God-given liberties. That was the intent of the Bill of Rights.
Reply-
-
100%
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
that is the very question is what our Fore Fathers struggled with. Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, amongst many others, helped lay down the Bill of Rights and set off the "Great American Experiment." Because something like this had never been tried before.
Reply
They knew their history. They knew exactly what the tyrants in the past and the kings of their past did to trample their freedoms. They stymied our ability to speak ill toward the king. So that you were not allowed a dissenting opinion. They took away our guns, so that we could not revolt against unbearable conditions. They spied on us without reason, and tortured us, and imprisoned us without a trial.
Any of these actions sound familiar? But they weren't psychics. They didn't know George W was going to come around. They just knew their history and noted the steps to tyranny.
So, to enforce this tyranny from happening they specifically wrote these "cannot's" into the Bill Of Rights in order to restrain government. And made law that all our politicians would swear to uphold the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies.
As it turns out, it isn't working very well right now. I can get into plenty of reasons why. But I think education is our main problem.
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78905 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Even libertarian government needs money to enforce its laws and to provide even minimal services (military protection, for instance) to its citizens. Money is used to hire enforcers (police, military, etc.), as well as to provide services that people agree to receive as partial payment for living under the rule of that government.
Reply
Where will your non-tyrannical government get the money to protect liberty without taxes?
A government with no power and no ability to help its citizens is no government. It's a sham. And the society it supposedly governs is no different than one with no government at all; anyone can break its rules or overthrow it. That is the definition of anarchy.-
100%
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
but from your sentence structures i can see that you have a different definition of "government." you have to understand, first, that government gains its' existence from the people. it is not some arbitrary power outside of us that sits on top of a mountaintop. government *is* us.
Reply
if you replace every instance of the word "government," with simply "people agreeing" then you will understand the criteria. let me reword your post by following this new understanding.
"Even [people] needs money to enforce its laws and to provide even minimal services [to themselves.] [Yes, we do!] Money is used to hire [protection] as well as provide services. [Correct!]
Where will [people] get the money to protect [themselves] without [money]? [By working].
A [bunch of people] with no power and no ability to help [themselves] is [not much of a person.] It's a sham. [True!!! People that can't help themselves are paltry, at best.]
So you see. Once you remove government from a semi-omnipotent pedistal, and call it what it really is. Your argument is well understood. It is only when you categorize "government" as some arbitrary force outside of you does it become confusing.-
100%
Tangent0015 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But the people cannot directly oversee the government all the time, nor are the people a correct arbiter in matters of nuances of a chosen Constitution. And how are matters of foreign policy decided?
Reply
I agree the government should be an extension of the will of the people, tempered by an over-arching constitution. I also agree the current government has overstepped several boundaries, mainly due to a disenfranchised and uninterested populace and the undue influence of corporate interests and PACs.
It's a very fine line: the government must have some degree of autonomy to be able to function swiftly, but deliver some measure of confidence to the people that it is directly and immediately answerable for its actions.-
100%
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Right but it is still an important distinction to understand that there is no enemy. We are the government, whether we like it or not. Albeit I am not a Senator from Nebraska, and you probably are not the Vice President, but those people are our neighbors.
Reply
Sure, they are often removed from our opinions, and I won't pretend to justify this system that is obviously broken.
But I believe that our political decisions, our economic decisions, and our militaryt decisions are all based on our fundamental beliefs about life.
So the dysfunction we are seeing today is not a reflection of bad economics and bad politics. It is a reflection of out root views about life. and it's a demonstration that these views about life are based on fallacies.
The solution, then, is not to fix our politicians and our economics. The solution is a philisophical one, or a spiritual one. Because whatever false beliefs that we are having is causing this dysfunction. And there are certain truths about life, that the knowing of which, would change everything.
-
-
100%
Beau78905 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But you're describing an ideal that doesn't exist in the real world. It'd be great if everyone agreed to abide by mutually beneficial rules. Unfortunately, there are always those who would like to break the rules, and others living under other agreements who would like to exploit those who abide by the agreement.
Reply
What can your government do to protect those who sign on to its social contract?-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i am not suggesting that people will always agree. breaking the rules and exploitation is going to happen under any system.
Reply
Maybe the discussion should be: What is the job of Government (aka people)?
When our Constitution was originaly conceived some very intelligent gentlemen, they inserted the following: "A government of the people, by the people and for the people."
Sounds reasonable to me.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
willottica5 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Is food a natural resource? It once was. You could subsist off of berries and nuts, hunting, and fishing. How many people in the US have access to enough public land where they can forage for food? If they can't get food on their own, then what do they do? Your answer is "work for it". But what work will they do that gives them food? Money seems to make slaves of everyone, you have to work at unrelated tasks to get your allowance of paper that lets you go the supermarket and buy food. How many can actually go out and work for FOOD?
Reply
A similar problem exists with shelter. The "homeless" are not allowed to build their own homes. They're run off public lands if they set up tents. So they are forced into a low-paying, demeaning job that they hate in order to try to get enough to pay someone else for shelter and for food.
Rather than provide for themselves, they are forced to pay someone else to provide for them.-
50%
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i can understand how you feel. but you will notice that the reason why homeless are not allowed to build homes and pick wild fruit is because government has presupposed ownership of all the land, air, water, and even energy.
Reply
the truth is there is enough food, enough water, enough air, and enough energy for everyone.
the solution to government intereference is certainly not more government interference.
so we should seek not to mandate homeless homes be built and food be provided, but rather to eliminate the mandates that interfere with natural order of abundance.-
80%
willottica5 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is enough... but not enough in the public domain. This "government has presupposed" is a bit of a red herring if you ask me. If government HADN'T presupposed ownership, then someone else would have come along and claimed it.
Reply
I don't believe it's mandates that interfere with natural order of abundance, but the ownership society itself, which encourages us to own more and more (thus depriving others of ownership of a limited number of resources).
True, it was much simpler before we arrived on the continent and reversed the belief that no-one can own the land. Every revolution in history has centered around the fact that ownership of resources had concentrated into the hands of the few who then used that control to repress the many.
It's amazing how often I think of the lyrics from Pocahontas (since it's one of my least liked Disney movies and I think I only ever watched it once). But they are so sadly true and a direct commentary on what seems to ail modern society:
"You think you own whatever land you land on: the Earth is just a dead thing you can name..."
Why are we so obsessed with having more than we need? The simple answer is that we want enough to carry us through if something goes wrong. But in order to achieve the ever-elusive "enough," we keep grabbing from those for whom something HAS gone wrong. As you say, there is enough food, water, air and energy for everyone... and if we stopped hoarding it and shared it with those who were experiencing hard times, then we wouldn't need to stockpile it. When something went wrong we would know there was plenty for the sharing.
"Government" is not, in and of itself, some giant monolithic beast bent on controlling everything and everyone. "Government" is a creation of man, to BE that collective that provides security in case of hardship, to be the organized body that seeks to provide security and fairness in the populace. It is an agreement between us all. It is supposed to be the embodiment of us all working together. Ideally, every single person should be part of government, and in that idealistic sense, government should be ALL-inclusive (though not all-controlling).-
50%
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think our obsession of claiming ownership of things comes from fear. It is fear that there is not enough in the world in order to survive.
Reply
We also falsely believe that we are separate from each other. So we think it is acceptable to kill each other in order to resolve conflicts.
But if we start to look at the root causes of our behaviors, then you start seeing how insane all of it is.
I advocate sharing. I am the most giving when I actually have money to give. When I am forced to work 4 months out of the year to prop up a war of terrorism, bank bailouts, and endless other dysfunctional government actions, then i simply do not give as much as I'd like to.
the best gifts is not food. but rather, knowledge. ever hear the saying, "if you teach a man to fish....?" but hand-outs stymie learning and create reliance which is another unintended consequence. so a mandate that people should have to provide food for others actually adds to the problem, even though it sounds very nice on the surface.-
100%
Candida5 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tadair919: "When I am forced to work 4 months out of the year to prop up a war of terrorism, bank bailouts, and endless other dysfunctional government actions, then i simply do not give as much as I'd like to."
Reply
Well, then perhaps you should fight against these evils. Food and health care for everyone cost as lot less, and do a lot more good.
OK, so you don't want to pay taxes to pay for health care for yourself and others. What's the solution? Letting those who can't afford it simply die?
'the best gifts is not food. but rather, knowledge. ever hear the saying, "if you teach a man to fish....?"' you say.
How do you teach a quadriplegic to fish? How about an old man or woman who can no longer walk or has lost his/her mind?-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
well, i actually suspect that the medical cartels are actually killing us with their drugs. if my suspicioun is correct, then government mandating the flow of drug-induced damage and murder is certainly not a functional one.
Reply
but even supposing western medicine works, (we are very good at fixing broken bones), then i still maintain that the unintended consequences of guaranteeing food and "health," will severely lead to the decline in quality of both as is always the case in any government program.
can you imagine fema in charge of food? yikes!
also, for those who do not wish to give. i sincerely believe in the goodness of the person. for those who do not give, i would remind them that We are All One. So when you give to somebody else, you actually are giving to yourself. If you steal from somebody, you actually are stealing from yourself. And if you make somebody a slave, you actually are making yourself a slave. This is because we are all a part of the same energy. We are all connected. All different waves in the same ocean.
And if they still don't give. Then so be it. Who am I to mandate, otherwise?
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0015 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you are refusing to contribute or living off the work of others then you are 'taking beyond your need'.
Reply
If you look at aboriginal societies, such people are extremely rare. Given the opportunity, people work hard, people work together and everyone is valued. The injured and sick are cared for. The elderly are revered for their sage council. Modern society has intentionally devalued anything other than a young celebrity lifestyle. -
100%
Beau78905 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And what about those who can provide for themselves but refuse to?"
Reply
That's bad, and costs unnecessary money. But there are also those who can't provide for themselves through circumstances beyond their control. I guess the question becomes: do we provide help for those who need it, knowing there will be some waste, or do we refuse help to everyone because some will abuse the system?
I'd prefer to err on the side of helping those who do need it. And I'd argue that there are more who need help than there are who'd exploit it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Tangent0015 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"because government has presupposed ownership of all the land, air, water, and even energy."
Reply
Excuse me, 'government'? The vast majority of land and water rights is in private ownership.
"so we should seek not to mandate homeless homes be built and food be provided, but rather to eliminate the mandates that interfere with natural order of abundance."
Again, I agree in principle, but there is the inherent nature in some to 'indulge in the abundance' more than others.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
kobzikov5 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The "right to food" is an argument used by people who believe everyone has an inherent right to be fed."
Reply
The "right to food" has a definition, one which US has not ratified even though Carter administration has signed ICESCR. Here is the definition,
"Right to adequate food is a human right, inherent in all people, «to have regular, permanent and unrestricted access, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensures a physical and mental, individual and collective fulfilling and dignified life free of fear.»
«The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has the physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.»"
http://www.fao.org/righttofood/principles_en.htm
So as long as the state provides access to adequate food or means for its procurement it meets the obligations. If there is no "right to food" then not only does the state have no responsibility to provide those who lack access and the means for procurement of food, for example mentally handicapped, crippled, infirm, etc it can also take the means away from a person and starve whole segments of population. Like in Soviet Union under Stalin or North Korea right now.
"a closer examination reveals that this line of thinking is based on the fallacy that the ends can justify the means."
That is simply false. Even if "right to food" implied the right to be fed that DOES NOT mean that "ends can justify the means". For instance, I have a right to freedom of speech that DOES NOT give me a right to engage in libel or incite riot. The same way the "right to food" is limited. Neither the state, nor an individual can obtain access or means to procure food through illegal means.
"Similarly, just a few hundred years ago proponents of slavery argued their case for it: "How else are we going to tend to the farm??" To them, the ends of survival justified the means of slavery."
If this was a serious question and not simply a canard designed to support chattel slavery, then one might answer in a number of ways. For instance, by working the land the same way as you intend to force slaves to work, or by hiring Africans as laborers if you need their services, if you have no money then by paying them with profits earned from their labor, etc.
"this time around, the more altruistic-sounding man asks a very similar question. People ask themselves, "how else are we going to feed those who starve?"
Hold it right there, cowboy. Shouldn't we at fist establish that those who have no access to food or means to obtain access should have some sort of help in the endeavor? Why not just let them starve? There are what 150 thousand homeless veterans on any given night? Not to mention other homeless people who might be having all kinds of physical or mental problems that prevent them from obtaining access to food, so why not just let them all starve?
Once you can answer the question, I think we'd be about ready to tackle the issue of how to feed them.
"Their answer? Slavery of course.
But they don't like to call it slavery, so they change the semantics around to avoid the ugly connotations associated with that word."
I don't know if you are aware, but what makes slavery unique is that it is defined by use or threat of violence against those who refuse to work. I'm personally not aware of any arrangement in which the "right to food" was enforced through use of violence or threat of violence against those who refuse to support it, so you should definitely provide some kind of evidence in that regard.
"You own your body and only your body."
If all you own is your body and ONLY your body, then you don't even own the clothes on your back. Oh and you definitely don't own the food that you might have bought, since you've just negated the most basic of property rights, the ones needed for your survival.-
100%
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
your "right to food" definition is just a mere U.N. proposal. One that makes a mockery of liberty and national sovereignty. it is a method of globalization and central control through a proprietary coercive body based on fear and interdependence.
Reply
"If all you own is your body and ONLY your body"
you are playing with words. i am saying you own your body, and nobody else's body. nothing of of your possessions.-
50%
kobzikov5 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"your "right to food" definition is just a mere U.N. proposal."
Reply
Poison the well fallacy is not a rational counterargument.
And this isn't just "my" definition. It is the definition used by the vast majority of countries on this planet, since the definition was accepted and ratified by them. If you've got a different definition please provide a legal reference.
By the way, Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also "a mere UN proposal". One that US "merely" signed. Where do you think the "right to food" comes from anyway if not from "mere" UN proposals?
Your ad hominem attacks against UN have precious little to do with the subject at hand, which is whether people should or shouldn't have a "right to food". You haven't even answered a single one of my questions pertinent to the topic.-
100%
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
-
Neutral
Tangent0015 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If stating facts is important, here's one: the National Guard has been called out to drop hay bales to cattle stuck without food during heavy blizzards. No compensation to the government for fuel, equipment or manpower.
Reply
I mean, God forbid the price of a Ruth's Chris steak should go up a couple of bucks. -
100%
kobzikov5 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"stating facts are not attacks."
Reply
Here is the definition of ad hominem:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Even if what you said were facts and "the truth" instead of your opinion and speculation since you've chosen to attack what you consider characteristics of UN instead of sticking to the topic under discussion you've committed an ad hominem attack.
If you want to discuss how much you despise UN or how what you say is "the truth" or even your opinion of my understanding of national sovereignty then start a different thread. I'm here to read arguments for and against people having "right to food" not to read your ad hominem attacks whether they are directed against UN, me or anyone else.-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i think we got off on the wrong foot because we may live in different countries? I can't tell because usually people who speak about UN and International treaties are foreign. Is this true? This is not an attack. This is an honest question.
Reply
The type of government set up in America is a Constitutional Republic. It is (supposedly) a democratic system of checks and balances that allow for representatives to decide shared policy. A Constitutional Republic means that our representatives must adhere to the Constitution when considering policy. Each and every one of them swore to uphold it before they are allowed in.
Your UN charter is benign because it is not American law. It is foreign. It has no bearing in the current discussion about how some Americans believe they have a right to food to be given to them without having traded for anything in return.
It pressupposses the laws of the land. I don't recognize it.-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"i think we got off on the wrong foot because we may live in different countries?"
Reply
You're right to an extent. We did get off on the wrong foot, but not because we live in different countries, that is if you live in US. The reason we got off on the wrong foot is because you've attempted to change the topic and as soon as we'll get back to discussing the "right to food" I assure you we'll be right as rain. :)
"I can't tell because usually people who speak about UN and International treaties are foreign. Is this true?"
In general that is probably the case if nothing else because much of American education system doesn't make any discernible emphasis on international law, though since we are discussing Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and "right to food" is the topic then it sort of comes with the territory.
I wasn't born in America, but I am a US citizen, if that kind of thing is important to you.
"The type of government set up in America is a Constitutional Republic..."
I'm quite familiar with US government system, though if you'd like to make a Constitutional argument against "right to food" then I'd love to hear it.
"Your UN charter is benign because it is not American law."
False. UN Charter has the power of US law. Read US Constitution. In Article 6 Clause 2 it states,
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constituti...
And since US is has signed and ratified the UN Charter, both are requirements for UN membership by the way, UN Charter has the force of US law, at least on paper.
"It has no bearing in the current discussion about how some Americans believe they have a right to food"
I thought we were discussing whether people should or shouldn't have a "right to food"? What happened to that?
And whether "some Americans" believe they have a right to food or not, US DID sign UDHR, so at least on paper US government agrees with the principle. But I hope we'll get back to discussing whether people should or shouldn't have the "right to food", because I still don't know where you stand and what's the reasoning behind your position.-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
would you like to discuss the philosophy of a "right to food," or do you want to discuss law? these are two different things. i will happily do both.
Reply
it can be said that this udhr is a noble aspiration. but those who adopted it did not imagine it to be a legally binding document and it would not hold up under Constitutional scrutiny.
the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the government. Anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitutional is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws.
The Tenth Amendment was adopted after the Constitutional ratification process to emphasize the fact that the states remained individual and unique sovereignties; that they were empowered in areas that the Constitution did not delegate to the federal government. With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.
James Madison, during the Constitutional ratification process, drafted the “Virginia Plan” with the intent on giving Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
Historian Kevin Gutzman, who has said that those who would give us a “living” Constitution are actually giving us a dead one, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power.
By the way. I started this dialogue speaking of the philosophy of the "right to food," in that it is a direct contradiction to the inherent god-Given-at-birth natural right that you possess your body. So, it was you, who changed the subject to the topic of law.-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"would you like to discuss the philosophy of a "right to food," or do you want to discuss law? these are two different things. i will happily do both."
Reply
I don't know what you mean by "the philosophy of a "right to food"". So far you haven't provided a single reference explaining what you mean when you say "the right to food". All you've done is attacked the definition that I provided as "mere UN proposal".
I want you to answer the following questions. Should people have a "right to food" as it is defined and agreed on by most of the countries in the world? Yes or no? And I want to know why.-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
right now you are tip-towing on the murky idea that law equates to morality. not all laws are moral and, for that matter, even functional. if you want to talk about the legality then we can. but i think you and i both agree that talking about the idea of a "right to food" is much more substantive than its lawful application.
Reply
if you re-read my initial comments on this thread then you will see that i have already laid out the contradiction that demanding food (or any good or service), means that somebody must be doing the providing. if somebody is doing the providing against their will, then we are breaking the most fundamental freedom of them all. that is my stance on the right to anything.
these so-called "rights," sound very good on the surface, but as soon as you go to enforce the right, you automatically infringe on our most basic freedom.
what is your definition of a "right to food?" do you believe that this means that getting food by your own work should be uninhibited by arbitrary governance, or do you mean that people who do not have food should automatically be given it by government -- even if it means forcing others to pay for it?-
0%
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"what is your definition of a "right to food?" do you believe that this means that getting food by your own work should be uninhibited by arbitrary governance, or do you mean that people who do not have food should automatically be given it by government -- even if it means forcing others to pay for it?"
Reply
If you don't know the answers to the questions then you haven't read my first post.
And since you haven't so much as attempted to answer the questions that I asked continuing to talk to you is a waste of my time. -
100%
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And since you haven't so much as attempted to answer the questions that I asked continuing to talk to you is a waste of my time."
Reply
...as is usually the childish response when one realizes they are boxed into a corner.
i did answer your question. you did not answer mine. good luck to you.-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are absolutely right you boxed me into the corner by your apparent refusal to answer simple questions.
Reply
I'm completely stumped by your rejection of accepted definition of "right to food" as it is agreed upon by most of the countries in the world and your inability to provide an alternative referenced definition for what you termed "the philosophy of "right to food"".
Congratulations.-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I haven't seen a single serious reference source defining "right to food" in such completely irrational manner. And I doubt that you have. I think you pretty much pulled it out of your behind, which is why I predict that you we'll not be providing any reference sources supporting such a definition.
Reply
In any case, If this is your definition then I reject it and disagree with it as completely irrational and immoral.
Would you like to answer my questions in regard to the definition agreed upon by the vast majority of countries and the one that I provided in my first post?-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
have you ever had somebody ask you to elaborate on a meaning? have you ever explored a subject beyond its' simple definition?
Reply
I can't understand why you pretend to be such a logician if you aren't even capable of scratching beneath the surface of thought.
Your childish stance that the U.N.'s definition of "right to food," should be taken at face value because the minority of countries' leaders have signed on to a resolution is paltry.
You have to understand the ramifications. You have to look at your core beliefs about life. And, above all, you have to be willing to think.
Of course I will not be providing any references to support the concept of a "right to food." What in God's name would possess you to believe that would be the proper thing to do? Do you believe that definitions must be given to you by a greater authority? Are thoughts and concepts delivered to you from the ruling class where they must be accepted without scrutiny?
The definition that you cling to is a contradiction in liberty. You cannot see this because it is evident that you don't even know what liberty means.-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"have you ever had somebody ask you to elaborate on a meaning?"
Reply
I have. Those who asked actually agreed with me on that particular definition instead of using poison the well fallacy or ad hominem attacks. I was pretty sure they were more interested in understanding what I was saying then in making personal attacks.
"I can't understand why you pretend to be such a logician if you aren't even capable of scratching beneath the surface of thought."
Back to personal attacks so soon? Is that because you have nothing rational to say on the subject of the discussion anymore?
"Your childish stance that the U.N.'s definition of "right to food," should be taken at face value because the minority of countries' leaders have signed on to a resolution is paltry."
First of all it's majority of countries' leaders AND people. In case you aren't aware most of the countries have signed on to UDHR and ratified ICESCR. But if I'm to disregard all the evidence that suggest UN definition to be authoritative on what basis am I supposed to adopt your irrational definition which you pulled out of your ass and can't support with a single reference?
"Of course I will not be providing any references to support the concept of a "right to food." What in God's name would possess you to believe that would be the proper thing to do? Do you believe that definitions must be given to you by a greater authority? Are thoughts and concepts delivered to you from the ruling class where they must be accepted without scrutiny?"
What a bunch of nonsense. You are making completely specious claims and yet I'm to take them at face value. On the other hand, I'm to question accepted, widely used and documented definitions on no basis whatsoever.
"The definition that you cling to is a contradiction in liberty. You cannot see this because it is evident that you don't even know what liberty means."
Notwithstanding your ad hominem, you haven't even explained how access to adequate food or means to acquire such access by all men, women and children regardless of their economic or physical conditions contradicts even the irrational definition of of liberty that you came up with.-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't know why I am sending you this link. As it is not a U.N. charter you will undoubtably reject itas nonsensical and irrational that surely cannot stand on its' own merit. But here is The Philosophy of Liberty:
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I don't know why I am sending you this link."
Reply
Because it is not related to the subject at hand and you have a great affinity for changing topic?
"As it is not a U.N. charter you will undoubtably reject itas nonsensical and irrational that surely cannot stand on its' own merit."
I didn't ask you to produce a reference exclusively from UN for your definition of "right to food". I've asked for any serious reference. Did you really think that I'd adopt your definition simply because you dislike UN?
"But here is The Philosophy of Liberty"
That is not the philosophy of liberty. It is the philosophy of self-ownership. If you consider the terms interchangeable that is your business, I do not. Ownership the same as property is a transferable concept, liberty on the other hand is not.-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is the philosophy of liberty. It is an explanation of why we have the right to act according to our own will. Liberty is not just some throw away buzz word that you can throw into a sentance to make charter's appear fair and sincere. There is a very specific meaning. It's freedom of choice. And if you don't agree perhaps, you can share with me your definition. How about without citing sources? I want you using your own mind for this one.
Reply-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Liberty is not just some throw away buzz word that you can throw into a sentance to make charter's appear fair and sincere."
Reply
And constructing straw men is not a rational way to argue.
"here is a very specific meaning. It's freedom of choice. And if you don't agree perhaps, you can share with me your definition."
Liberty is freedom of choice? Then I had liberty when I lived in Soviet Union.
"And if you don't agree perhaps, you can share with me your definition. How about without citing sources? I want you using your own mind for this one."
Even if English wasn't my second language and I didn't consult references to make sure that I understand what you are saying I still wouldn't agree to such a request since I don't see the point of it and consider it irrational. If you regard use of references as not using your own mind that seems like a personal issue, which you might want to look into on your own time.
If you looked into the definition of "liberty" in a reference source you'd find that most of the applicable definitions in the context of our discussion share certain characteristics, such as defining it as freedom from interference, control, or rule, mostly from a government.
Though if I had to pick one I would probably pick the following,
"freedom from external (as governmental) restraint, compulsion, or interference in engaging in the pursuits or conduct of one's choice to the extent that they are lawful and not harmful to others"-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i find it humorous that the second part of your definition of liberty rests on what is "lawful." for you to say this, demonsrates that you do not fully understand liberty. because the first part of your definition, "freedom from external compulsion" runs at contrast to the qualifying ending, that it depends on man-made compulsary laws.
Reply
with that aide. do you not see that if somebody demanded that you give them food, that it is an external compulsary interference?-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"i find it humorous that the second part of your definition of liberty rests on what is "lawful.""
Reply
You should try reading legal dictionaries more since you find definitions from them so humorous. What I would find even more humorous is watching you present this argument in a court of law in defense of criminal behavior. I didn't even know that there were people who believed that everyone should have the freedom to act illegally without external restraint or interference, besides criminals that is.
"do you not see that if somebody demanded that you give them food, that it is an external compulsary interference?"
That seems like quite an irrational request to make from a private citizen, seeing how I don't have any food. I'm not a soup kitchen.
And if they had a right to food then they would already have access to food or means to acquire it so it would make even less sense for them to demand food from me.-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
that is yet another logical fallacy. all shampoos are soap, but not all soaps are shampoos. all liberties are free from external interference, but not all external interferences (such as law) are free from liberty. so you see, your idea is caused by the false belief that legality equates to what is right. you believe law takes precedence over liberty, regardless of its' merit. you seem to want to frame your argument, always in a court of law because you believe in an external authority to be your supreme decider over liberty, itself. but that is a direct contradiction to what liberty means. that is why i predict you will never accept the idea that you own your body and have a freedom of choice.
Reply
but liberty and law consistently conflict with eachother. victimless crimes such as polygamy and prostitution are commonly cited examples. you know it was once illegal for a white man to marry a black woman. but what does the law have to do with liberty? nothing. people almost never keep liberty in mind when writting laws.
"That seems like quite an irrational request to make from a private citizen, seeing how I don't have any food. I'm not a soup kitchen.
And if they had a right to food then they would already have access to food or means to acquire it so it would make even less sense for them to demand food from me."
now, i think you are getting it. it is indeed an irrational request to make a private citizen work for, pay for, or provide food for those who do not have it. even if you are starving, no matter how tempting, it would still be an attack on liberty to take it from a wealthy person. you are very much correct to say that that person should acquire it with their own devices than to demand it be taken from you.
but you see. when people say "a right to food," this is what they are really saying. they are saying that it should be provided to the needy by the "government." but the government doesn't have it's own money. every dollar the government spends must be collected in taxes. taxpayers make their money by the fruits of their labor. therefore, government can't create food. every peice of food or service that it "provides," comes directly from the private sector.
at the very best, the government should "get out of the way" of people trying to get food. so it is not a disagreement over whether or not people should be able to get food. that is already a given. it is a discussion over how this is going to manifest based on our core root beliefs about life.-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"that is yet another logical fallacy. all shampoos are soap, but not all soaps are shampoos. all liberties are free from external interference, but not all external interferences (such as law) are free from liberty. so you see, your idea is caused by the false belief that legality equates to what is right."
Reply
What a bunch or completely absurd mush. It's bad enough you are using a straw man argument, what's worse it doesn't even make sense. What in the world does "not all external interferences (such as law) are free from liberty" mean pray tell? And where did I say a single word about "what is right"?
"you believe law takes precedence over liberty, regardless of its' merit."
No, I do not. That is yet another straw man. Why do you keep telling me what I believe instead of asking me? That is completely disrespectful.
"that is why i predict you will never accept the idea that you own your body and have a freedom of choice."
I'll accept that I "own" my body as soon as I hear a rational and coherent argument for it and someone presents me with the evidence that "I" as a consciousness am separate from my body, until then I'll treat it as a completely irrational and baseless claim. And I don't deny that I have freedom of choice.
"but liberty and law consistently conflict with eachother."
Of course they do. Who said that they don't?
"victimless crimes such as polygamy and prostitution are commonly cited examples."
I know about victimless crimes. You don't have liberty to engage in them if you agree with the definition I provided. Or do you believe that you are free from government interference if you choose to commit the crimes?
If you define liberty simply as "freedom of choice" then you have "freedom of choice" not only to commit victimless crimes you also have the "freedom of choice" to rob liquor stores.
"you know it was once illegal for a white man to marry a black woman."
I do and no one in their right mind suggested that people had the liberty to engage in interracial marriages at the time, at least I'm not aware of anyone saying it. With that being said I agree with those that hold that people SHOULD have the liberty to get married regardless of their race or sexual preference for that matter.
"but what does the law have to do with liberty? nothing. people almost never keep liberty in mind when writting laws."
That is completely absurd. Because politicians don't keep liberty in mind when they write legislature then the laws magically stop having an effect on it??? Do you actually think of what you are saying or do you just randomly string the words together in a sentence hoping that they make sense?
Am I to believe that when for example politicians say that they order dropping bombs on countries to kill only bad people that those bombs magically don't hurt anyone else since the politician didn't think about it? Am I to believe that since the politicians say that the waterboarding is not torture or they don't consider it torture then it magically stops being torture or that all the volumes of evidence suggesting that it is in fact torture should be disregarded? Should we simply ignore volumes upon volumes of evidence showing that laws DIRECTLY effect liberty, simply because you think that "people almost never keep liberty in mind when writting laws"?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the vast majority of the time politicians know EXACTLY what they are doing, ESPECIALLY when they write laws to curb our liberties. It isn't just a coincidence that Patriot Act resulted in violations of privacy and other civil rights. It was written to increase government power. And it isn't exclusive to Republican or Democratic party either as I'm sure you're well aware.
"now, i think you are getting it. it is indeed an irrational request to make a private citizen work for, pay for, or provide food for those who do not have it."
That's not what I said. And I disagree with your straw man, but if you truly believe what you said you really shouldn't pay taxes and you should openly advocate anyone who doesn't support any US policies stop paying taxes as well. Until you start doing that I will consider your claims entirely hypocritical.
"even if you are starving, no matter how tempting, it would still be an attack on liberty to take it from a wealthy person. "
I think I've seen this argument presented in picture form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:French-Liberty-B...
Though can you explain to me why you have no problem with a society on an island agreeing to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, but have a problem with Americans as a society agreeing to the same thing?
"you are very much correct to say that that person should acquire it with their own devices than to demand it be taken from you."
My comment supports the right to food, if you disagree with it then why are you saying that I'm correct?
"but you see. when people say "a right to food," this is what they are really saying. they are saying that it should be provided to the needy by the "government.""
I don't know what people you are referring to, but that is not what I'm saying. And you aren't talking to them you are talking to me.
If there is a point of agreement between us that the right to food is a good idea, then my next question would be how would do you prefer the right to food to be achieved?
If there isn't because you are against paying taxes in general, then my question is on what basis do you have no problem demanding others pay taxes for US government day-to-day expenses? If the argument is against substantially raising taxes then my question is what if the right to food could be secured without it or with minimal tax increases?
"but the government doesn't have it's own money. every dollar the government spends must be collected in taxes."
That is a non sequitur. Just because government gets its budget from taxes does not imply that the money does not belong to the government.
"taxpayers make their money by the fruits of their labor. therefore, government can't create food."
Another non sequitur. How taxpayers make their money bares no relevance or relation to the abilities of US government. US government is quite capable of making food and in fact does do that, albeit on a limited basis. In fact the largest mill in US is owned by federal government and state of North Dakota.
"every peice of food or service that it "provides," comes directly from the private sector."
That is another false claim. Amtrak, US Army, Peace Corps, FBI, USPS, NPS you get the idea.
"at the very best, the government should "get out of the way" of people trying to get food."
US government is preventing people from getting food? Never heard such a claim. Got evidence to support it?
"so it is not a disagreement over whether or not people should be able to get food. that is already a given."
Given??? Didn't you say that "The definition[of right to food] that you cling to is a contradiction in liberty. "
According to what you've said you DON'T think that people should be able to get food if they aren't capable. In other words, if a person who has been paralyzed from neck down has no one to help them they should starve to death.
"it is a discussion over how this is going to manifest based on our core root beliefs about life."
From what you've said, your core root belief is that those who have no means to get food should starve to death if it would burden a wealthy person for as much as a single cent. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. What concerns my root beliefs, then they tell me such views are akin to madness.-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you seem to have trouble with deductive logic. let me lay this out again.
Reply
law often runs at stark contrast to liberty. victimless crimes demonstrate that. your definition that liberty relies upon what is legal, therefore i said that it was a direct contradiction to what liberty actually means. robbing liquor stores is not an example of liberty, because the liquor store owner is getting robbed. it is an example of tyranny. these two points further demonstrates that you will never understand liberty. liberty is bound by liberty, itself. not by law. the fact that you want me to point you in the direction of an "official" definition of liberty means that you will always live in a world where people tell you what to believe. this is because you don't believe in liberty. you give your creative powers away to people outside of yourself because you imagine there is somebody of greater significance that is the bearer of official language. you imagine that we could never muster a dialogue about liberty without it being controlled by some official source presenting evidence. but i have not created a definition of liberty. i am merely going by the true meaning of the word. your definition was very close, but was proven to be a contradiction. as noted above, that is because law has no bearing in what is or what isn't liberty. if you strike any reference to what is legal in your definition then you have yourself a pretty good starting point. in the mean time, you will not understand what i am talking about. people being able to get food was never in question. what is question is the methodology used to get food. i say, get government out of the way. you say, have government provide it at the expense of those who wish not to pay for it and labor for it -- which, is demonstratingly un-libertarian. government is run by people. taxes are people's money given to the government. it isn't government's money. the government gain's its' authority by the people, for the people. not the other way around. government does not make food and cannot make food. amtrak, peace corps, usps, etc is all paid for by the people. every dollar spent in government is taken from the people.
>> "but liberty and law consistently conflict with eachother."
> "Of course they do. Who said that they don't?"
you did. with your definition of liberty that relied upon the law.
thank you for the dialogue, but at this point i have to say we are not getting anywhere. until you admit first that government cannot make its own money and labor, that liberty is irrelevant to law, and that taxes are a form of altruistic-sounding tyranny, then in the end, you will find, that you have not learned anything at all.-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not going to go through all your fallacious reasoning, but I do find it ironic that you think that I have trouble with deductive logic when your explanation relies on begging the question "robbing liquor stores is not an example of liberty, because the liquor store owner is getting robbed" and tautology "liberty is bound by liberty, itself".
Reply
tadair919: but liberty and law consistently conflict with eachother.
kobzikov: Of course they do. Who said that they don't?
tadair919: : you did. with your definition of liberty that relied upon the law.
False. When a concept is defined through other concepts even conflicting ones, that does not mean the conflict magically goes away.
Let's try a simple analogy, island is a piece of land defined by surrounding water. When there is a tide the piece of land becomes smaller, the water encroaches on the land. Similarly when laws are passed and previously legal behavior is criminalized law encroaches on liberty. Thus, conflict.
What you fail to see, which is indicative from your refusal to respond to my counterarguments are the implications of suggesting that law and liberty are unrelated concepts. One of the most obvious ones being that it means that whether a state adopted laws of US, Switzerland, Cuba, Soviet Russia, North Korea, or Nazi Germany the people living in the state would have the same amount of liberty. When it's patently obvious that is not the case.
It's obvious that we aren't going anywhere because it's quite evident that not only are you either uninterested or incapable of arguing rationally, you aren't even interested in constructive dialogue. Why else would you bring up fallacious arguments that I've already addressed, say things that are false, and consistently avoid my questions and counterarguments that demonstrate inconsistencies in your views?
I've already learned a great deal about your views and fallacious reasoning that you use to support them, there is no need for me to deny the reality that I and millions upon millions of people have lived and continue to live to learn something. If you think there is maybe you should ask yourself why such irrational views make sense to you.-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you said the definition of liberty is "freedom from external restraint,... to the extent that they are lawful..."
Reply
now you are saying "law and liberty are unrelated."
so which one is it?
are you admitting, finally, that law and liberty are unrelated, or are you still insisting that liberty depends on what is lawful?
i shouldn't have to explain to you that the owner of the liquor store being robbed runs in contrast to liberty, even by your original definition.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tadair919, why do you keep insulting my intelligence?
Reply
Did you not state in your first reply to me on the board,
"your "right to food" definition is just a mere U.N. proposal"
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/07/10/conserva...
How can you seriously ask "what is your definition of a "right to food?"" after I posted the definition in my first comment on the story?-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you have given me a definition, but what does that mean to you when you break it down?
Reply
do you believe that this means that getting food by your own work should be uninhibited by arbitrary governance, or do you mean that people who do not have food should automatically be given it by government -- even if it means forcing others to pay for it?-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"you have given me a definition, but what does that mean to you when you break it down?"
Reply
It means exactly what it says no more no less. It explains what is "right to food" and how to differentiate between when such a right exists or doesn't exist. It says NOTHING about how a society or government is to go about achieving such a right.
"do you believe that this means that getting food by your own work should be uninhibited by arbitrary governance, or do you mean that people who do not have food should automatically be given it by government -- even if it means forcing others to pay for it?"
Right to food is about access to food or means to secure such access. If a person has no means to secure access to food, then government is to at least help secure such means, if a person is incapable of utilizing such means and government help, then government is to provide access to food. Again "right to food" in itself says NOTHING about how a government or society is to go about implementing it.
I asked you a very simple question. Should people have "right to food"? What that means is that I asked you if you agree that every every man, woman and child should be able to access food or acquire access regardless of their physical or economic condition. That seems like a pretty simple yes or no question. This question has NOTHING to do with enforcement of right to food. I'm only asking if you agree with the principle.-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Should people have "right to food"?
Reply
Absolutely not if it attempts to infringe on your God-given right: Freedom of choice.
There are other methods of keeping people from going hungry without having to infringe on people's choice. But since you believe that the government is an absolute requirement in securing that, then you will forever justify it citing buzzwords such as "principle" and "compassion," without even a hint of irony that you are uncompassionately contributing to the very damage that you were hoping to prevent.-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Absolutely not if it attempts to infringe on your God-given right: Freedom of choice."
Reply
How does access to food or means to acquire access to food infringe on your or someone else's "God-given right: Freedom of choice"?
"There are other methods of keeping people from going hungry without having to infringe on people's choice."
I'm not proposing any methods, at least not until I understand your reasoning.
"But since you believe that the government is an absolute requirement in securing that.."
Please spare me the ad hominems. You don't know what I believe and if you were interested in it you'd ask instead of talking about what you don't know.-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"How does access to food or means to acquire access to food infringe on your or someone else's "God-given right: Freedom of choice"?"
Reply
I've said it three or four times. When somebody who does not have food is given food, then automatically we are shifting the burden to people who do not wish to be burdened. You are infringing on their free will, not, to have to pay for somebody else's dinner. There are no two ways about this.-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is not true. People give others food all the time, whether they find the practice burdensome or not. As a matter of fact there are charity programs that feed tens of millions of people some of them run by your despised UN.
Reply
What concerns your free will not to pay taxes then you can choose to do so as well if you can do so without getting caught, have really good lawyers and can win in a lawsuit against IRS, or can face the consequences of losing such a suit. Your taxes on state or federal level pay for much much more then welfare programs for the veterans, poor, and sick. If that kind of thing bothers you, you can always advocate for repeal of said programs. Though I find it strange that right to food and universal healthcare for Americans bothers you more then, let's say US military aid to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel or other countries. Shouldn't that be the first priority if one wishes to eliminate "burden to people who do not wish to be burdened" then cutting off funding for poor and sick Americans? Hell, even cutting off humanitarian aid it seems should be a higher priority if this is about not burdening those who do not wish to be burdened.
Besides in any society someone's free will is always being infringed. That's what happens when you live in a society. For instance, the vast majority of US population prefers to live in Constitutional republic and infringes on my free will to live in an anarcho-syndicalist state or someone else's free will to live in a theocracy or someone else's free will to live in a socialist democracy.-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Besides in any society someone's free will is always being infringed. That's what happens when you live in a society. For instance, the vast majority of US population prefers to live in Constitutional republic and infringes on my free will to live in an anarcho-syndicalist state or someone else's free will to live in a theocracy or someone else's free will to live in a socialist democracy."
Reply
This argument contradicts itself. you do not have a free will to live in an anarcho-syndicalist state. you do not have a free will to live in a theocracy and certainly not a socialist democracy. you dont even have the free will to live in a Constitutional Republic. for you to demand these requirements of your free neighbors, would restrict their inherent liberties.
infringing on liberties is a common theme amongst various societies. But that doesn't make it a requirement of a society to exist. If 100 people lived on an island, who generally got a long with eachother and did not infringe on the other islanders free-will, then that would still be considered a society. Albeit, a highly enlightened one.-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This argument contradicts itself."
Reply
You are absolutely right. Which is why if someone were to write in a confession:
"I picked up a gun, took aim at his buttocks and pressed the trigger of my own free will."
We can dismiss the statement as contradictory to itself, because shooting someone in their ass restricts victim's inherent liberties of not being shot and therefore saying that someone has done it of their free will is absolute nonsense.
"for you to demand these requirements of your free neighbors, would restrict their inherent liberties."
My "demands" are in no shape or form different from their demands that I live under the existing form of government.
"infringing on liberties is a common theme amongst various societies. But that doesn't make it a requirement of a society to exist."
Societies do not exist without compulsory rules of conduct. If you disagree find a society in history of humanity where there were no such rules.
"If 100 people lived on an island, who generally got a long with eachother and did not infringe on the other islanders free-will, then that would still be considered a society. Albeit, a highly enlightened one."
There were island populations whose members generally got along with each other with number of inhabitants being in hundreds, for instance those who lived on Bikini atoll before nuclear tests. Whether you'd consider their society or that of any other island to be free from infringement on the other islanders free-will I have no idea.
What I can say, is that inhabitants of islands that small with such small populations tend to establish cooperative societies where they take care of their young, sick, and elderly instead of individualistic societies where its members believe that taking care of others is "burden to people who do not wish to be burdened".-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the fact that so many tyrannical governments are the norm, is not a sign that that is the proper way to do things. it is an indication of the enormity of the problem.
Reply
those societies where they take care of their young, sick and elderly probably are doing it in agreement with eachother. you do not need a U.N chater, a government mandate, or some law written to tell me to take care of my friends and family. I do it anyway, as is always the case.-
Neutral
kobzikov5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"the fact that so many tyrannical governments are the norm, is not a sign that that is the proper way to do things. it is an indication of the enormity of the problem."
Reply
If you think that existence of compulsory rules of conduct makes a society tyrannical, then there are no societies which are not tyrannical.
"those societies where they take care of their young, sick and elderly probably are doing it in agreement with eachother."
They are doing it in agreement with each other, that does not mean the agreement is unanimous. And if an agreement is not unanimous then according to your reasoning the "free-will" of those who disagree is being trampled on.
"you do not need a U.N chater, a government mandate, or some law written to tell me to take care of my friends and family."
That's wonderful. Not everyone is like you. Some people have no friends or family, others treat their family like dirt, others don't even know what condition their family is in because their family doesn't talk to them, others cannot provide for their families even though they care. Are they or their families to starve or die of illness, because they aren't as fortunate as you are?
What concerns law, whether it is international law or federal law or state law it has to be approved either by general public or their representatives so in that sense its not that different from the rules on which island communities agree including to take care of the young, sick, elderly, etc.-
Neutral
tadair9195 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"That's wonderful. Not everyone is like you. Some people have no friends or family, others treat their family like dirt, others don't even know what condition their family is in because their family doesn't talk to them, others cannot provide for their families even though they care. Are they or their families to starve or die of illness, because they aren't as fortunate as you are?"
Reply
That is the same logic that was used to justify slave-ownership. Well, how else are we going to tend to the farm? We aren't wealthy enough and cannot provide for our farm without this type of "assistance," so our family will starve or die of illness, in less we get some slaves to tend to it.
if the community is in agreement to take care of their young, sick, and elderly at the expense of those who do not wish to, then it not demonstrating liberty.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
67%
calitennflo5 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Congress needs to do what the law says...not what a conservative or a liberal says. If the bill of rights says they shall not...then they shall not. When they send a policeman to arrest us...they do not use the conservative or liberal views...do they?
Reply
It's time to see through that bunch of liars.
Look how they set women and children up every year repeatedly...to put them in jail for being in gangs, or just being wise to what the police and congress along with that president are doing.
The United States is has people at the helm that love to torture you using money and the physics that goes with it's diminishing effects over and over...and until Oboma admits it...he;s breaking the law...a Universal one...called slavery.
It is not necessary to have a government like we are witnessing...but it is dictated by nature we follow the Universal laws. Not the pageantry of Oboma and those in Washington...who want to acrt like what?
# pageant: a rich and spectacular ceremony
# pageant: an elaborate representation of scenes from history etc; usually involves a parade with rich costumes
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Haha...what does that get you? Further in debt. -
-
-
100%
Beau78905 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Saying that every human has the right to life (as in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness") does not mean every human has the right to the best life any human can have. Okay, I wouldn't call a Cadillac the best car a human could have--and I wouldn't call it food either. But you can see my point against your analogy, can't you?
Reply-
100%
rimbaud5 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are given life, you have a right to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. You must do the pursuing part, yourself, though, and are prevented from taking food from the mouths of the wealthy, even if you are hungry. If you've ever been hungry, you know how tempting the fruit is, and whether you are desparate enough to risk your liberty by grabbing what you need.
Reply -
100%
Tangent0015 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nobody is claiming the right to the 'best life', just the right to survive and to help our children survive.
Reply
If there were a place where people could go to subsistence farm and live merely off the sweat of their own brow, that would be one thing, but there isn't. There are less jobs than there is population. Period. Do the unemployed die? Do their children?
People die IN AMERICA because they can't pay their heat bill, or get medical care or pay for their prescription. There's something inherently wrong with that.
Do I blame it on the middle class who won't sacrifice their cable service so they can contribute to charity? Nope. There are people with billions of dollars, and people die from diarrhea, or thirst or lack of a fistful of rice. Do I want them to simply buy some food as a stop-gap measure? Nope. Maybe take half your 50 million dollar yearly compensation package and hire 1000 people at a living wage. You've spent decades squeezing 200% of the productivity into half the number of people. When that doesn't work, you outsource the work to some feeble third-world nation and tell a 20-year employee to get bent.
As a nation, we're better than that.
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0015 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The current argument from the Right is that they don't want taxpayer dollars to pay for the bad decisions (smoking, obesity, etc.) of others. Guess what? Our taxes already pay for the apprehension, prosecution and incarceration of every crapstack that decides to rob a liquor store, cap their spouse or rape a child. And they want to deny children taxpayer funded health care?
Reply
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.