Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (715)	8/15/2000 9:37:42 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1013

< 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? 1 - Military strength of a certain degree can be necessisary for the state to continue to function against possible external threats. This idea deals more with general principles then the current state of the US because the US does not face a high risk of invasion and would not even if we greatly reduced out military power. We do face threats from nuclear weapons but currently we have no defence against them. The only way lack of health care can pose a threat equal to an enemy army is if there is a deadly and rapidly spreading epidemenic. In such cases however you can have a role for the government without having universal health care. 2 - Military defense of our country or its vital interests can only effectively be provided by the government. Private individuals, groups, or corporations would find it very difficult to amass enough military power, and if they did they themselves would present a possible threat to the government and to the freedom and democracy enjoyed by the people in our country. 3 - Combining 1 and 2 - Military power is a basic function of the state. Consistently throughout history physical security against external aggression has been provided (or at least attempted) by governments. If you have a society and a government that respects and protects your rights it doesn't help for long if you are invaded by a hostile totalitarian power. During the draft of the Vietnam War,did draftees have the " right " to refuse to go?At who's expense and to who's benefit did these young men and women die in a foreign land in a war they understood little about!!? I think the draft is immoral (basically in a certain sense drafted soldiers are slaves at least temporally, even though I'm sure they don't usually look at it quite that way). The expense was born by the taxpayer, and by the soldiers (through their undercompensated efforts as well as their lives. The benefit was pretty temporary as we pulled out and the communist took over anyway. If we had succeeded I think the South Vietnamese would have benefited greatly. Indirectly slowing or stopping the advance of communism had some benefit to the US and all those who opposed such an evil system. Tim

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (715)	8/15/2000 11:43:13 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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?