Your Health Care Hypothetical

[Aubrey 10]

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 28 million people were uninsured for all of 2005 and 2006 and that 18.5 million of them were uninsured for at least four straight years. That does not sound like a “temporary” problem, and the picture today is almost certainly bleaker.

Maybe they didn't want insurance? I don't remember ever needing a doctor when I was 20+.

You obviously didn't read the article. That wasn't the point being made in that paragraph. The argument for "want" and the need (as a nation) was made elsewhere in the article.

I myself have been uninsured for a period because I couldn't afford the COBRA payment. And being 20 doesn't preclude a person from ending up with huge medical expenses. Even with health insurance, a few years ago I found myself unable to pay for the tests they wanted because I was under-insured and could not afford standard private coverage (an MRI will run you over $1000, for example, and when you have to pay a deductible first, it's easy to not be able to afford care).

Perhaps if you try reading the article, you will better understand what I mean. Just think of all the VJ members that aren't eligible for Medicare or Medicaid and can't afford/don't qualify for insurance based on their immigration status.

[mRx 16]

"I would accept state or federal sponsored health insurance, even if I disagree with it in principal, for the sake of my spouse or child."

Can I ask what the principal is to not accept fed or state sponsored insurance?

In Marc speak? "Git off government's teet and change yer own diaper!"

But carrying that out to the extreme would it not mean not driving on highways, using public transportation, fire depts. etc. cause they are all subsidized by tax payers & local govs?? I don't understand why it's okay to accept some forms of Gov. assistance/control, but not others.

I listen to "Air America" (Progressive talk radio) on my way to work everyday, and whenever someone calls in and questions whether the government is covertly forcing itself into matters best reserved for individuals and families, the caller is blasted with the above absurdity that you wrote.

It's true, individuals who would like to release themselves from government control, can only do so much, considering the fact that the government has a monopoly over highways/roads, and emergency services. And the Progressives exploit this condition of monopoly to make the caller's concern seem trivial and selfish.

The underlying logic of this weak and predatory attack is:

You're forced to pay for and accept these services, and since you accept them, why not accept these?

It entirely overlooks the actual concern of the caller: the force.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"I would accept state or federal sponsored health insurance, even if I disagree with it in principal, for the sake of my spouse or child."

Can I ask what the principal is to not accept fed or state sponsored insurance?

In Marc speak? "Git off government's teet and change yer own diaper!"

But carrying that out to the extreme would it not mean not driving on highways, using public transportation, fire depts. etc. cause they are all subsidized by tax payers & local govs?? I don't understand why it's okay to accept some forms of Gov. assistance/control, but not others.

I listen to "Air America" (Progressive talk radio) on my way to work everyday, and whenever someone calls in and questions whether the government is covertly forcing itself into matters best reserved for individuals and families, the caller is blasted with the above absurdity that you wrote.

It's true, individuals who would like to release themselves from government control, can only do so much, considering the fact that the government has a monopoly over highways/roads, and emergency services. And the Progressives exploit this condition of monopoly to make the caller's concern seem trivial and selfish.

The underlying logic of this weak and predatory attack is:

You're forced to pay for and accept these services, and since you accept them, why not accept these?

It entirely overlooks the actual concern of the caller: the force.

U.S. Citizenship is an unforced contract and the conditions of such contract are just like any other contract if you adhere to the Libertarian view of social contracts.

[mRx 16]

"I would accept state or federal sponsored health insurance, even if I disagree with it in principal, for the sake of my spouse or child."

Can I ask what the principal is to not accept fed or state sponsored insurance?

In Marc speak? "Git off government's teet and change yer own diaper!"

But carrying that out to the extreme would it not mean not driving on highways, using public transportation, fire depts. etc. cause they are all subsidized by tax payers & local govs?? I don't understand why it's okay to accept some forms of Gov. assistance/control, but not others.

I listen to "Air America" (Progressive talk radio) on my way to work everyday, and whenever someone calls in and questions whether the government is covertly forcing itself into matters best reserved for individuals and families, the caller is blasted with the above absurdity that you wrote.

It's true, individuals who would like to release themselves from government control, can only do so much, considering the fact that the government has a monopoly over highways/roads, and emergency services. And the Progressives exploit this condition of monopoly to make the caller's concern seem trivial and selfish.

The underlying logic of this weak and predatory attack is:

You're forced to pay for and accept these services, and since you accept them, why not accept these?

It entirely overlooks the actual concern of the caller: the force.

U.S. Citizenship is an unforced contract and the conditions of such contract are just like any other contract if you adhere to the Libertarian view of social contracts.

Huh? A contract is a voluntary agreement between two consenting parties (i.e. you paint my garage door and I mow your lawn).

I assume by unforced you mean that the individual can just leave. This is a counterfactual/conditional statement, Steven, for it presupposes that ultimately the US Government owns America, through some tacit agreement. This implies that ultimately, we have no right to the land we live on. If we disagree with this contract to be ruled (which is exactly the type of "contract" this is) then we are "free" to GTFO.

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds? There is nothing contractual about this arrangement at all. No individual would voluntarily consent to such an agreement, and if you assume (by tacit consent) that we have, then by tracing the origins of the US Constitution and it's ratification it's revealed that not everyone originally agreed to the contract on our behalf.

If Libertarians are followers of Rosseau's(sp?) contract theory, then I guess I'm not a Libertarian at all.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

U.S. Citizenship is an unforced contract and the conditions of such contract are just like any other contract if you adhere to the Libertarian view of social contracts.

Huh? A contract is a voluntary agreement between two consenting parties (i.e. you paint my garage door and I mow your lawn).

I assume by unforced you mean that the individual can just leave. This is a counterfactual/conditional statement, Steven, for it presupposes that ultimately the US Government owns America, through some tacit agreement. This implies that ultimately, we have no right to the land we live on. If we disagree with this contract to be ruled (which is exactly the type of "contract" this is) then we are "free" to GTFO.

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds? There is nothing contractual about this arrangement at all. No individual would voluntarily consent to such an agreement, and if you assume (by tacit consent) that we have, then by tracing the origins of the US Constitution and it's ratification it's revealed that not everyone originally agreed to the contract on our behalf.

If Libertarians are followers of Rosseau's(sp?) contract theory, then I guess I'm not a Libertarian at all.

Matt - without going into a basic civics discussion about the creation of the U.S. of A., I think you know what it entails. It is a contract - a contract with the states and the individuals within those borders. Now if you want to argue that the U.S. Constitution as a contract was forced upon individuals within those borders who didn't want to be part of it (the Native Americans for example), you might have a point. However, the contract of citizenship can be severed freely by the individual. If your citizenship is not a social contract in the context of Libertarian ideology - what is it?

As for legitimacy of governance being determined by ownership of the land - Matt...that sounds frankly anarchist. Ownership of land only exists within the context of contracts. Our understanding of property of land was foreign to the Native Americans who lived here before us - they didn't carry deeds, nor did they build fences. Ownership of property is not absolute nor does it build the foundation of laws...unless you espouse Feudalism.

[mRx 16]

U.S. Citizenship is an unforced contract and the conditions of such contract are just like any other contract if you adhere to the Libertarian view of social contracts.

Huh? A contract is a voluntary agreement between two consenting parties (i.e. you paint my garage door and I mow your lawn).

I assume by unforced you mean that the individual can just leave. This is a counterfactual/conditional statement, Steven, for it presupposes that ultimately the US Government owns America, through some tacit agreement. This implies that ultimately, we have no right to the land we live on. If we disagree with this contract to be ruled (which is exactly the type of "contract" this is) then we are "free" to GTFO.

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds? There is nothing contractual about this arrangement at all. No individual would voluntarily consent to such an agreement, and if you assume (by tacit consent) that we have, then by tracing the origins of the US Constitution and it's ratification it's revealed that not everyone originally agreed to the contract on our behalf.

If Libertarians are followers of Rosseau's(sp?) contract theory, then I guess I'm not a Libertarian at all.

Matt - without going into a basic civics discussion about the creation of the U.S. of A., I think you know what it entails. It is a contract - a contract with the states and the individuals within those borders. Now if you want to argue that the U.S. Constitution as a contract was forced upon individuals within those borders who didn't want to be part of it (the Native Americans for example), you might have a point. However, the contract of citizenship can be severed freely by the individual. If your citizenship is not a social contract in the context of Libertarian ideology - what is it?

As for legitimacy of governance being determined by ownership of the land - Matt...that sounds frankly anarchist. Ownership of land only exists within the context of contracts. Our understanding of property of land was foreign to the Native Americans who lived here before us - they didn't carry deeds, nor did they build fences. Ownership of property is not absolute nor does it build the foundation of laws...unless you espouse Feudalism.

When you boil it down, Steven, then the government owns all the land in the U.S. of A--Anarchist-sounding or not. It is the basis for citizenship, is it not? If the government didn't ultimately own every piece of land within our arbitrarily designated borders, there would certainly be no need for citizenship, and definetely no need to leave the US if the one-side contract wasn't to one's liking.

Property is the most important tenet of liberty. Without it, reductio ad absurdum, we are all just slaves. The popular phrase: "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was originally based on Locke's "Life, Liberty, and property", which was adopted into the Virginia Declaration by Anti-Federalist and Founding Father George Mason. Of course, the Federalists, like modern-day Statists, thought it wise to remove "property" from those certain inalienable Rights, for if property was an inalienable Right, then the government would have no means to govern, and we'd be faced with the "horrible" situation of being a truly free people.

It's easy to see the dissention of the founders and revolutionaries in the 1700's through their writings. The Federalists overpowered the Anti-Federalists, and the system which we were left with was destined to turn Totalitarian from the get-go.

Look, I'm not espousing Anarchism, Libertarianism, or Feudalism, I'm merely pointing out that the relationship between individuals and government is not one that follows a contract.

[mawilson 2,133]

U.S. Citizenship is an unforced contract

Only for naturalized citizens who voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Natural born US citizenship is defined under the laws of nature - hence the term "natural born".

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law (or "contract") to establish

his or her citizenship through birth.

[Amby 490]

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 28 million people were uninsured for all of 2005 and 2006 and that 18.5 million of them were uninsured for at least four straight years. That does not sound like a "temporary" problem, and the picture today is almost certainly bleaker.

Maybe they didn't want insurance? I don't remember ever needing a doctor when I was 20+.

I chose to not have insurance for awhile because I didn't really need it. I have it now and barely use it. I know a lot of people my age that don't have it because they don't think they need it.

As far as medical expenses I've spent like $100-150 this year on copays and stuff for yearly checkups, and I've spent about $20,000 on elective surgery.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When you boil it down, Steven, then the government owns all the land in the U.S. of A--Anarchist-sounding or not. It is the basis for citizenship, is it not? If the government didn't ultimately own every piece of land within our arbitrarily designated borders, there would certainly be no need for citizenship, and definetely no need to leave the US if the one-side contract wasn't to one's liking.

Property is the most important tenet of liberty. Without it, reductio ad absurdum, we are all just slaves. The popular phrase: "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was originally based on Locke's "Life, Liberty, and property", which was adopted into the Virginia Declaration by Anti-Federalist and Founding Father George Mason. Of course, the Federalists, like modern-day Statists, thought it wise to remove "property" from those certain inalienable Rights, for if property was an inalienable Right, then the government would have no means to govern, and we'd be faced with the "horrible" situation of being a truly free people.

It's easy to see the dissention of the founders and revolutionaries in the 1700's through their writings. The Federalists overpowered the Anti-Federalists, and the system which we were left with was destined to turn Totalitarian from the get-go.

Look, I'm not espousing Anarchism, Libertarianism, or Feudalism, I'm merely pointing out that the relationship between individuals and government is not one that follows a contract.

You are applying ownership in absolutes and I'm saying ownership is never absolute. If we fast forward 2,000 years from now, whatever deed you may have on a property you now own may be nullified, particularly if the US of A no longer exists. That doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't have rightful ownership of the property, but good luck convincing whatever current government your property is under that the property belongs to you because you have a 2,000 year old deed that says so.

Although the government doesn't own your property, your right of ownership's legitimacy relies on the existence of that government and it's laws that recognize ownership. You could not declare you property sovereign from the government that makes its existence a legal reality. And imagine if you and are on a ship to inhabit another planet. What would the criteria be for you and I to declare rightful ownership of land on that planet? If you think that ownership of property is an inalienable right, then how does one rightfully own property outside the context of some kind of society and its laws?

Edited September 1, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[mawilson 2,133]

You are applying ownership in absolutes and I'm saying ownership is never absolute. If we fast forward 2,000 years from now, whatever deed you may have on a property you now own may be nullified, particularly if the US of A no longer exists. That doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't have rightful ownership of the property, but good luck convincing whatever current government your property is under that the property belongs to you because you have a 2,000 year old deed that says so.

So all those Palestinians who claim ownership to the land that we call Israel today can fuсk off then?

Glad we settled it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You are applying ownership in absolutes and I'm saying ownership is never absolute. If we fast forward 2,000 years from now, whatever deed you may have on a property you now own may be nullified, particularly if the US of A no longer exists. That doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't have rightful ownership of the property, but good luck convincing whatever current government your property is under that the property belongs to you because you have a 2,000 year old deed that says so.

So all those Palestinians who claim ownership to the land that we call Israel today can fuсk off then?

Glad we settled it.

Does that mean the Canaanites can't get their land back?

[mawilson 2,133]

You are applying ownership in absolutes and I'm saying ownership is never absolute. If we fast forward 2,000 years from now, whatever deed you may have on a property you now own may be nullified, particularly if the US of A no longer exists. That doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't have rightful ownership of the property, but good luck convincing whatever current government your property is under that the property belongs to you because you have a 2,000 year old deed that says so.

So all those Palestinians who claim ownership to the land that we call Israel today can fuсk off then?

Glad we settled it.

Does that mean the Canaanites can't get their land back?

I personally think the Palestinians can fuсk off, which is why I'm happy to see Stevo acknowledge

the fact that ownership is relative - whatever deeds they had are no longer valid.