Discussion: Healthcare

Discussion in 'Politics' started by EasternComfort, Mar 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. EasternComfort

    EasternComfort On Vaction

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    As originally written in Forbes
    By: Yaron Brook

    With the primary season in full swing, the presidential candidates are fighting over what to do about the spiraling cost of health care--especially the const of health insurance, which is becoming prohibitively expensive for millions of Americans.


    The Democrats, not surprisingly, are proposing a massive increase in government control, with some even calling for the outright socialism of a single-payer system. Republicans are attacking this "solution." But although they claim to oppose the expansion of government interference in medicine, Republicans don't, in fact, have a good track record of fighting it.
    Indeed, Republicans have been responsible for major expansions of government health care programs: As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney oversaw the enactment of the nation's first "universal coverage" plan, initially estimated at $1.5 billion per year but already overrunning cost projections. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who pledged not to raise any new taxes, has just pushed through his own "universal coverage" measure, projected to cost Californians more than $14 billion. And President Bush's colossal prescription drug entitlement--expected to cost taxpayers more than $1.2 trillion over the next decade--was the largest expansion of government control over health care in 40 years.


    Today, nearly half of all spending on health care in America is government spending. Why, despite their lip service to free markets, have Republicans actually helped fuel the growth of socialized medicine and erode what remains of free-market medicine in this country?


    Consider the basic factor that has driven the expansion of government medicine in America.


    Prior to the government's entrance into the medical field, health care was regarded as a product to be traded voluntarily on a free market--no different from food, clothing, or any other important good or service. Medical providers competed to provide the best quality services at the lowest possible prices. Virtually all Americans could afford basic health care, while those few who could not were able to rely on abundant private charity.


    Had this freedom been allowed to endure, Americans' rising productivity would have allowed them to buy better and better health care, just as, today, we buy better and more varied food and clothing than people did a century ago. There would be no crisis of affordability, as there isn't for food or clothing.


    But by the time Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965, this view of health care as an economic product--for which each individual must assume responsibility--had given way to a view of health care as a "right," an unearned "entitlement," to be provided at others' expense.
    This entitlement mentality fueled the rise of our current third-party-payer system, a blend of government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, together with government-controlled employer-based health insurance (itself spawned by perverse tax incentives during the wage and price controls of World War II).


    Today, what we have is not a system grounded in American individualism, but a collectivist system that aims to relieve the individual of the "burden" of paying for his own health care by coercively imposing its costs on his neighbors. For every dollar's worth of hospital care a patient consumes, that patient pays only about 3 cents out-of-pocket; the rest is paid by third-party coverage. And for the health care system as a whole, patients pay only about 14%.


    The result of shifting the responsibility for health care costs away from the individuals who accrue them was an explosion in spending.
    In a system in which someone else is footing the bill, consumers, encouraged to regard health care as a "right," demand medical services without having to consider their real price. When, through the 1970s and 1980s, this artificially inflated consumer demand sent expenditures soaring out of control, the government cracked down by enacting further coercive measures: price controls on medical services, cuts to medical benefits, and a crushing burden of regulations on every aspect of the health care system.


    As each new intervention further distorted the health care market, driving up costs and lowering quality, belligerent voices demanded still further interventions to preserve the "right" to health care. And Republican politicians--not daring to challenge the notion of such a "right"--have, like Romney, Schwarzenegger and Bush, outdone even the Democrats in expanding government health care.


    The solution to this ongoing crisis is to recognize that the very idea of a "right" to health care is a perversion. There can be no such thing as a "right" to products or services created by the effort of others, and this most definitely includes medical products and services. Rights, as our founding fathers conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but freedoms of action.


    You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services--no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a "right" to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.


    So long as Republicans fail to challenge the concept of a "right" to health care, their appeals to "market-based" solutions are worse than empty words. They will continue to abet the Democrats' expansion of government interference in medicine, right up to the dead end of a completely socialized system.


    By contrast, the rejection of the entitlement mentality in favor of a proper conception of rights would provide the moral basis for real and lasting solutions to our health care problems--for breaking the regulatory chains stifling the medical industry; for lifting the government incentives that created our dysfunctional, employer-based insurance system; for inaugurating a gradual phase-out of all government health care programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid; and for restoring a true free market in medical care.


    Such sweeping reforms would unleash the power of capitalism in the medical industry. They would provide the freedom for entrepreneurs motivated by profit to compete with each other to offer the best quality medical services at the lowest prices, driving innovation and bringing affordable medical care, once again, into the reach of all Americans.


    http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/01/08/health-republican-plans-oped-cx_ybr_0108health.html
     
    #1
  2. Handsome Rob

    Handsome Rob On The Jazz

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    24
    Brilliant article . . .

    I'm going to study it in more depth when I'm more awake . . .
     
    #2
  3. SuBe

    SuBe Voluntaryist

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    11,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amazing Article, Thank you very much for sharing that with us.

    I hope everyone read that.
     
    #3
  4. Arkady Rossovich

    Arkady Rossovich Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    In Sicko,Nixon was the one who first pushed for the idea of a "Money Making Heath Care System"..it has been broke ever since. I can imagine Universal Health Care coming out..because of necessity. It's too expensive in it's current way.
     
    #4
  5. EasternComfort

    EasternComfort On Vaction

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    That system from day was mired in corruption as Nixon effectively had them in his pocket. If the President has the power to control and give special favor to some it goes against the very idea of a free market. Without the government having the power to manipulate the system to their benefit or the benefit of a few (such as controlling prices) each company must independently show people they have the best service for cheapest prices.
     
    #5
  6. Damiean Dark

    Damiean Dark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,889
    Likes Received:
    0
    You should have universal healthcare and people who want the current stuff can go to a private doctor i dont see the difficulty its certainly not money the USA can easily afford it.
     
    #6
  7. EasternComfort

    EasternComfort On Vaction

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are deep in a deficit DD. Second the moral issue raised which perhaps you would like to explain your argument more?

    "You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services--no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a "right" to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others."
     
    #7
  8. Mr Sparkle

    Mr Sparkle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    14,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    "The solution to this ongoing crisis is to recognize that the very idea of a "right" to health care is a perversion."

    that is perhaps the single stupidest idea ever.
    hey, how about charging for " security " ? a nice little 10,000 or 20,000 dll bill if police ever happen to stop a robbery at your house.
    hey, House on fire? hope you have the 15,000 dlls it's going to cost to bring firemen over, and heaven help you if one dies while saving your property.
    why not apply the "awesome power of capitalism" to that?
    hmm, sounds like a plan right?
    why is it that people think that " hey no one has a right to healthcare" of course they do! to think they don't is ludicrous.
    they have a right, of course, else, why construct a society at all, let's all become perfect capitalists, and let only the wealthy be able to afford the " services " of the police and fire department.
    hey, let's extend it! natural disaster hit your town?
    well, let's hope you can pay the national guard bill! cuz it's going to cost ya!
    hahahahaha! gotta love the simple mindedness behind the idea that sickness is a LUXURY! the inhumanity behind that is just staggering! I guess that a wealthy businessman with cancer VS a guy that works the counter at 7-11 would be able to more appropriately express the awesome power of capitalism if both of them got cancer.
    of course, most likely, the only one able to fully express anything would be the businessman, as I'm sure the counter jockey wouldn't be able to come up with anything more coherent than " please...it hurts! make the pain stop!"
    haha! should have thought about cancer BEFORE you got that crappy job! should've taken some awesome job somewhere else, you could've been an actor getting paid 20 mill to lend your voice to some doctor Seuss character, but NO, you had to be bull headed and CHOOSE to be lower middle class, hell, some people even choose to be poor.
    man.
    these losers think that WE owe them something?
    stupid, stupid people just looking for a handout.
    I mean, it's not like a society is made to protect the individuals that comprise it from threats!
    and even if this was so, it's not like sickness is a threat! it's not like some sort of unplanned event, I'm sure most people KNOW when and how they are going to get sick, and thus, society owes them NOTHING!
    and hey, it's not like these people in health care make a killing out of every living person out there! lord knows that if anything, we are getting healthier right?
    it's not like we are all hooked on drugs ( the legal kind, don't get all shifty eyed!) and the companies make millions, hell billions!
    it's not like other countries have made the system work! all over the planet free health care is a failure, just go to Canada, or France.
    or freaking Cuba.
    Cuba, well, they make it work because they have such a vibrant economy.
    but being the leader of the free world takes MONEY and this money can't be spent on lazy sick people.
    it needs to be spent making awesome weapons and well, you don't like foreigners taking your job right?
    well, triple walls with motion sensitive robo-alligators need to be built, and it's not like these robotic, soulless protectors of American jobs are going to pay for themselves.
    right?
    I mean, there's no place that the US could've taken money from and , you know spent it on healthcare.
    no sir, god knows all appropriations are good and useful, like that time that they covered that statues tit.
    that was well worth the money was it not?
    I know I, as a foreign national dream of going to a place where my fragile Mexican mind won't be contaminated by naked stone *******.
    but yeah, this is all about " entitlement " and the mentality that has become prevalent.
    I mean, if only free healthcare were completely eliminated, I'm sure that the awesome powers of capitalism would generate such opportunities for bidding wars that taking out a tumor would be like 1.99$ and you'd get your tires rotated as well.
    sure, some people won't be able to afford that anyway, seeing as how they are poor, but this would thin out the herd, I mean, these people didn't even have the drive to be rich! who wants that kind of people around.
    I mean, the drug industry has been able to access the full awesome power of capitalism and lord knows that they haven't abused that privilege at all.
    I mean, I'm sure the endless parade of senior citizens that flood tijuana on a daily basis looking for all kinds of prescriptions?
    well, I'm sure they haven't heard that capitalism is working it's magic and that any day now, they'll get their heart medication with a free pack of cyalis.
    you know for when the time is right.
    I like how a right can't require coercion or sacrifice from others.
    but then, I'm sure you all know how roads are built.
    I have an idea.
    the government stops building roads and public transportation systems and only the communities able to afford them will be able to get around.
    well, either that or some neat 4X4 vehicles.
    those are capitalism at it's best.
    I'm sure someone will say " oh that's a little extreme" and I will chuckle, shake my head and say " yeah, next thing you know I'll be putting a price tag on people's lives!"
    and then we'll all laugh, a freeze frame will ensue and an " adapted for the screen" caption will appear underneath us.
    good times, good, terrifying times, that seriously make me question how we have devolved so much in the last 20 years, how little we care for each other and how desolate and hopeless this ****ing **** hole of a world feels sometimes.
     
    #8
  9. Damiean Dark

    Damiean Dark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Basic free healthcare should be the right for all US citizens it amazes me that such a religious country and easily the richist in existence sometimes shows so little care for anyone who isnt at a certain financhal level.
     
    #9
  10. EasternComfort

    EasternComfort On Vaction

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

    Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

    No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

    A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort …

    The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

    The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.

    Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.

    There is no such thing as "a right to a job"—there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man's right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no "right to a home," only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no "rights to a 'fair' wage or a 'fair' price" if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no "rights of consumers" to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no "rights" of special groups, there are no "rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn." There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.

    Property rights and the right of free trade are man's only "economic rights" (they are, in fact, political rights)—and there can be no such thing as "an economic bill of rights." But observe that the advocates of the latter have all but destroyed the former.
     
    #10
  11. Mr. Credible

    Mr. Credible jukebox hero

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Messages:
    7,553
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mr. Sparkle wins.

    flawless victory.
     
    #11
  12. lazur

    lazur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    One word: Awesome. :)
     
    #12
  13. SuBe

    SuBe Voluntaryist

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    11,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who do you plan on paying for that "universal" health Care? Do you know that your taxes would have to go up to pay for it? AND you would have to pay your higher taxes, effectively paying for health care, even if you are not sick? Why would you want to pay for something if you are not going to use it?

    That what I don't get, Why do you want to pay more taxes?
     
    #13
  14. EasternComfort

    EasternComfort On Vaction

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    These ideas he puts forth are so foreign in our country that without understanding people think that the poor will suffer greatly which is a misconception. The ultimate idea is to limit government to agents of force and protection armies, police, fireman, courts, with the elected body. This will first get rid of billions of dollars of wasteful spending on so many agencies we don't need. With limited government any taxes would be incredible lower giving people their own money back to use as they see fit. Since government no longer holds power over economy they cannot be bought off by big companies to make policies in their favor like controlled pricing. People are free to choose from the best products and prices so that the actual true value of things are seen and not "manufactured". The answer is not more government control but less it is because of government controls we are in the mess we are in. It is only when the Rich can manipulate the government they "get richer." In such a country everyone gets richer ...That is true capitalism the principle our country was founded on.
     
    #14
  15. Mr Sparkle

    Mr Sparkle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    14,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    courts are often involved in arbitrary matters, matters that have nothing to do with force or protection.
    again, who will build the roads? as they are neither force or protection.
    public transportation?
    nonexistent under your plan by chance?

    does this, then mean that when people go to war they will be billed for their healthcare under your capitalism plan.
    under your views aren't those maimed or hurt in war the same as those hurt or maimed at work.
    both provide a service do they not?
    also, why build border fences under your perfect capitalism plan?
    I mean, isn't the free market economy your goal?
    an Influx of cheap labor would force unskilled workers to bid for their jobs passing the savings on to the middle class would it not? and employers could choose to only hire legal citizens and then disappear off the market.
    I mean, the government doesn't owe you economic protection does it?
    also, why does sickness not fall under the category of " things to be protected from "?
     
    #15
  16. SuBe

    SuBe Voluntaryist

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    11,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    EC, your thoughts and Ideas make sense, but don't believe you are going to change Spakies' mind. He believes in big government and more control.

    They don't understand that there isn't anything that is "free". This Universal Healthcare crap... who's going to pay for it? If they have to levy a tax to pay for it, it's just going to equal more economic hardship on the lower class, raising their taxes along with everyone else. OR do I pay for there health care? I don't want to pay more money to the government. I can't understand why people are willing to hand over this to the governments hands!!

    Who here has ever been to a Government hospital? A Government Dentist? I have, when I was in the Military. It is not the best healthcare system. I had to wait 2 years to get a surgery that I needed to walk without pain. Only because of the Paperwork and beauracurcy. RED TAPE, and people that the Government deemed more important. Government Healthcare is Rationed. If you don't fit the Criteria, you wait. Do you want this to happen to you? Say that you are really badly injured in a car accident, and the chances of saving you are very slim, do you want that decision to fix you to be the Government Bean Counters who's going to look at how much it is going to cost to fix you? Do you want it to be that they have to check to see if it is in their budget to fix you?
     
    #16
  17. Mr Sparkle

    Mr Sparkle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    14,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    please don't assume to know what I believe in when it is obvious you don't.
     
    #17
  18. Mr Sparkle

    Mr Sparkle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    14,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    yeah, that's the exact system we're all proposing and there is no way to do it better.
    but I'm sure private healthcare is both affordable and infallible.
    I mean, what if you don't have the money for your lifesaving operation?
    do you want to die for lack of money? do you want this to happen to you?

    oh wait, it already IS happening.

    I forgot.
     
    #18
  19. EasternComfort

    EasternComfort On Vaction

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    SB, there was a time that I did not understand such ideas never being taught about such topics. I feel you have to be willing to atleast try because that is the only way ideas spread.

    Sparkle, the initiation of force is the act of one man initiating force against another, as opposed to retaliatory force. Force includes such acts as murder, theft, threats, and fraud. It is acting against another person without their consent. Courts are designed to handle such cases of fraud and other individual rights violation cases or property disputes. They are an agent of protecting our liberties. Roads and infrastructure are an asset to the people who use them, but that does not justify being financed through taxation - a form of extortion. Roads are of enormous value to people. It is impossible to imagine life without them. Government, though, is an agency of force. It need not use force if people would voluntarily act. So the usefulness of roads is an argument against government involvement, not for it. If roads are of as much value to people as they believe, they would be willing to pay for them (which they already do with taxation and tolls on top). Since the roads are owned an operated by the government, there is the problem that people's lives have become dependent on them. Selling the roads to the highest bidder, for instance, could cause enormous problems. Since people expect free access to the roads, they have built their houses and businesses accordingly. To prevent them from using the roads would subject them to the ruthlessness of the owners.
    If roads were always private, long-term contracts could be made with the owners of the roads. In this way, as long as you were willing to pay, you would have assured access to the roads. If more roads were needed, there would be profit to be made in making the roads. There is no need for government intervention in roads and infrastructure. There presence there now merely obscures this point.

    Government or the agency with the gun is not a business owned independently it is a system that all members of society pay for to protect their rights which through Democracy all people have a say in. They run on taxation and such as your cases is a needed expense for them to function to protect our rights.

    An influx of cheap labor happens all the time, with better protection from illegals at the same time letting in legal immigrants would not have much effect. Also consider the fact that people with more money would be able to invest create more jobs and open more businesses.

    Sickness can fall under the category things to be protected from if any individual has a disease that can spread against the wishes of others. With personal sickness again with the less taxation people would have more money to spend in case they get sick. As with other business medical drugs and services would have to sell better cheaper prices to stay in business which they will.
     
    #19
  20. EasternComfort

    EasternComfort On Vaction

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    If in such a system you do not have money to pay for an operation you seek assistance of a charitable organization. People such as yourself and myself I'm sure would have no problem with all the extra money we have to give money to an organization that helps people in such situations. But when take from a individual before he even gets his money for something he may or my not support that is thievery.
     
    #20
  21. SuBe

    SuBe Voluntaryist

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    11,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, what you are saying Sparkie is that you want Universal Healthcare in the United States at the Taxpayers expense, and put control of the healthcare of 300,000,000 + people in the hands of the Government of the United States, AND you don't support larger Government. Run that by me one more time... How is my assumption wrong?
     
    #21
  22. Mr Sparkle

    Mr Sparkle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    14,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    then your definition has to include " mediation " since " his tree is precariously close to my property line" does not exactly fall under " protection" nor " the music companies charged too much for cd's" nor " people are trading my intellectual property electronically" I'm sorry, and you would have to acknowledge this because since we have a right to NOT get murdered, a right to life is pretty implicit in our society.
    yet we would protect ourselves from murderers and terrorists, we expect our government to do this, but sickness?
    I mean, 3,000 people died in the 9-11 attacks, how many people a year die from treatable illnesses?
    less than 3,000 I don't think so.


    don't take this the wrong way, but that a lot of text that really kind of said nothing.
    there was a point there about " selling the roads to the highest bidder" as if government rather than private interest was more likely to do this.
    business operates on profit, it is not accountable to the people unless public fraud or infringement of laws are involved, so then, private business is more likely to sell something, anything to the highest bidder.
    I mean, Enron, does that not underscore the capacity for capitalism to not work in the interest of the people?
    you're assuming a lot of things in your post, but then, you feel that private companies should build roads then?
    what of roads that have been built around inner city development and then subsequent gentrification they have gone through?
    this would be lees likely if a community was unable to pay for the privilege ( you would turn communication through roads into a privilege) of having a road built next to them?


    and I believe that people have a right in a society to be treated when they are sick, like they have a right to be protected from threats both foreign and domestic, I feel illness is a very important threat to address in modern times.

    I'm sorry, but just so you know, Legal immigrants are NOT cheap labor, as their immigrant status affords them the luxury of demanding the same as citizens.
    cheap labor comes from Illegal immigrants, so again, the borders should only scan for criminal and threatening elements, ICE should be disbanded under YOUR rationale.

    really, so, you think that a guy that earns 7.50 an hour would be in that same position to fight his cancer than say a guy that makes 25 dlls an hour simply because of taxation?
    no, sorry, health would become ( as it is becoming) a privilege to only be held by those who can afford it, and then, what's the point of society?
     
    #22
  23. Mr Sparkle

    Mr Sparkle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    14,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    first of all, the taxpayers are going to be the beneficiaries, and unless there's some taxpayers that are never sick or never have kids healthcare is ALREADY at the taxpayers expense.
    secondly, look at systems like England or Cuba, a friend of mine, when he was like 8 went to Cuba with his parents and he got sick on the trip, he needed an operation and he got it for free and a foreign national.
    he would've been able to pay the fee as his parents are very well off, but what if he hadn't?
    millions of unhealthy poor people would benefit.
    are telling me that the self proclaimed greatest country in the world can muster the ingenuity to have unmanned predator drone planes but can't penetrate the mystery of keeping it's populace healthy?
    I mean, I guess under your assumption if you're for the military you're for " big government"
     
    #23
  24. Mr Sparkle

    Mr Sparkle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    14,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    so, you're saying that if I ride my bike to work, are not mugged or in need of police or firemen during a given year I shouldn't pay taxes?
    and if I'm anti-war? I don't even need to support the army!
    woo hoo, no taxes at all! let those that " support " that pay for it.
    :huh:

    in-sanity.
     
    #24
  25. EasternComfort

    EasternComfort On Vaction

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can't seriously take that away from what I've been saying. For a society to exist people need government to protect individual rights. If you choose to live in a society you must pay for such protections. If your anti-war such as I am that is the role of Democracy. If we followed the constitution a single President couldn't declare war all the "powers" must be involved. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
     
    #25
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"