Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:24:22 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
That's the problem with
socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.
If insurance companies can avoid that scenario, I see no reason why a
government agency can't do the same. I frequently read of someone
arrested for defrauding SS or Medicare or the IRS. Of course they don't
catch them all, but neither do the insurance companies. But both should
be able to hold fraud to an acceptable level.
Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
"qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.
Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many
class members who pay nothing but get program benefits. They do this
entirely *legally*. In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
system to the detriment of the contributors. So, the contributor
is forced - at the point of the government's gun - to participate
in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
who contribute nothing. Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
qualifies as a noble act. I find that alone astonishing and
a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
the intellectual/political left have become...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
If somebody stands on the ledge and gives all indications of jumping
off... do we try to talk them out of it?
Yes we do (if we're decent people). What we don't do is pick
up a gun and force our other neighbor who scared of heights
to go out on the ledge on our behalf and then take credit for
our "charity". Get the difference?
Of course I get the difference because it is not the same argument.
Straw man with a hint of red herring. Now I'm supposed to go chasing
you curve ball? Naaa.. I'm a bit more aware of that tactic of yours.
I see. So when your position is shown to be a fraud, you shrug
and refuse to defend it.
How do you consolidate cops cruising down your street even though you
don't want protection? Or do you?
I'm not sure what you mean by "consolidate cops" but ... one of the
very few things that government is *supposed* to do is interdict
in matters of fraud, force, and threat.
How kind of you to allow that much. So if a plague were to sweep the
country, too bad, so sad, we all die? It wouldn't be cool for medical
professionals to organize and force people to get immunized, right? Do
you get the difference?
There is no difference. Your analysis is bogus. Someone with a communicable
disease who does not get vaccinated or treated is committing an act
of *force* upon their fellow citizens by exposing them to the disease
knowingly - presumably against their will.
That is necessary to maintain
a democratic republic designed to protect individual liberty.
Cops, courts, the military and so forth are a necessary part of
protecting the liberty of the citizens.
But not, under any circumstances would a universal medical solution be
allowed, right?
Sure - if it's voluntary.
The CDC, a tax funded set up, is fraudulent?
To the extent that the CDC needs to exist to prevent examples
like the one you cite - people knowingly infecting one another -
it is legitimate. As a general matter though, there is no
Constitutional authority for the Federal government to do this
sort of thing.
Handing out other people's
money taken at the point of a gun to do social engineering is not
part of defending liberty. Get the difference?
You know I get the difference. You seem to have trouble deciding at
what point life and liberty are separated.
They are the same thing. You take my money, you took my life because
I spent some hours producing that money that I cannot get back.
But enough of your decoy arguments, that's okay in chess, but I'm not
very good at chess.
Evidently. Wanna play for money?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/