2000:The Make-or-Break Election Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : 2000:The Make-or-Break Election

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (715)	8/15/2000 11:43:13 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) of 1013

It is a duty of a free government to protect it's citizens' rights from those that would try to harm them, steal from them, subjugate them. Our Founding Fathers knew this well. It is one of the few Constitutional duties and responsibilities of government. Social programs are not. Social programs and legislated morality do not belong in a free society. It is NOT the duty of a government (if that government is based on individual liberty and freedom of the individual) to coerce some citizens to provide for others. That violates the rights of some individuals in the name of the need of the others. Universal healthcare is another redistribution of wealth scheme. It is another risky scheme promoted by the political party that has promoted many risky schemes over the decades: the Democrats. How is it risky? It is risky to individual rights, because it subverts them and weakens them, it pits some individuals against other individuals, it coercively steals income from some individuals at the point of a gun to give to other individuals because some politicians who happen to be in office at that moment decide they know what is best for people instead of letting people take responsibility for their own lives and their own children (as a truly FREE society would). It also moves towards making all individuals who work in the healthcare industry economic slaves to the State and in essence places a lien on those people's lives, income, abilities and brains because others have a need (not a "right") to it. In a FREE society needs never surpass rights. FT It's nice to " say " you care for another human being, but are you willing to give up a portion of your affluence to assist that human being in maintaining his/her health? If you are willing to spend money on military strength that ensures your survival and that of your neighbours,let alone send your sons and daughters to fight your wars,what is the difference in providing Universal health care? Please explain " at whose expense " this is maintained?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next