Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
-By Caleb Jones
You have a right to health care. That means no one can prevent you from purchasing health care products or services. It does not mean you have the right to force a doctor at gunpoint to provide you with free health care services against his will. That's slavery.
You have a right to education. That means no one can prevent you from educating yourself or from purchasing educational materials or services. It does not mean you have a right to force your next door neighbor at gunpoint to pay for your education. That's theft. Nor can you force a teacher at gunpoint to teach you for free if she doesn't want to. That's slavery.
Let’s flip it around to a right-wing issue. In the USA, you have the right to own a gun. That means no one can stop you from purchasing a gun if you want one. It does not mean you can force a gun manufacturer to build you a gun and give it to you for free. That's theft. And slavery.
That’s the difference between rights and privileges in terms of the original intent of the US Constitution. If instead you’re a socialist, you don’t agree with any of this and believe that you do actually have the right to enslave people at gunpoint to work for you for free or to give you stuff at their expense. This is why I’m glad I’m not a socialist (I can sleep at night), and why it’s a shame the US is becoming more socialist every year.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Zan 2017-08-02 05:33:00
and believe that you do actually have the right to enslave people at gunpoint to work for you for free or to give you stuff at their expense. Interesting, point of view... OK.... I watched the video.... but just asking... based on what you wrote... given America's 300 plus years of slavery then wouldn't one conclude that America has always been a socialist country. Just asking....
Jack Outside the Box 2017-08-02 06:09:00
Political correctness and white guilt detected. Initiating red pill countermeasures now:
given America’s 300 plus years of slaveryWhat the fuck are you talking about? America was born July 4th 1776. Slavery was abolished in 1865. 1776-1865 = 89 years. Not 300 plus. Check your math (and your PC nonsense).
then wouldn’t one conclude that America has always been a socialist country. Just asking….You mean for those 89 years? It was socialist towards one race and capitalist for the rest. And it took a Civil War to abolish that form of socialism. What's your point (other than to stoke up anti-white racism)?
Jack Outside the Box 2017-08-02 06:20:32
According to the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and the values of the European Enlightenment, rights are things that have been given to you by the "self-evident laws of nature." The government can't take them away from you because they weren't given to you by government in the first place. List of human rights: 1. The right to be free from physical violations against your physical body. 2. The right to be free from physical violations against, and theft of, your private property. 3. The right to be free from having your free will violated via deception, defamation, and fraud. A privilege is something a government, a private organization, a group of people, or an individual person gave to you out of their own generosity. Anything given to you as a generosity can be withheld from you at the pleasure of the giver. List of privileges: Everything other than the above three rights.
Tony 2017-08-02 07:37:19
He provides a dictionary definition at the beginning, and then completely ignores it throughout the video. In the US you do have a right to education through high school (remember, the definition of a right it's something due to somebody by legal guarantees). And free healthcare certainly could be a right. On the other hand, you don't have the right to be free from taxation. That's why people go to jail for avoiding paying taxes.
Zan 2017-08-02 09:24:04
Jack Outside the Box.... relax dude... no need to get so worked up... (for the record Slavery was practiced before 1776 and yes on paper it was abolished but still practiced over 100 years...ever heard of Jim Crow laws, etc...what do you think the 1950s and 60s Civil Rights movement was all about... so while you say, check my math. I would say check your reality). No this isn't about PC or white guilt or anti-white anything... it was ONLY about accuracy. No one is here to argue or fight... I was just asking for Caleb's broader point of view since it initially seems to conveniently ignore the bigger picture. Just drop it... Caleb, if this or my previous comment is causing this type of reaction...then please delete my comments... I'm not here for this type of nonsense.
Kurt 2017-08-02 10:13:13
According to our laws, one has a right to a fair trial by jury of peers. Don't the jury peeps have to be forced to show up to jury? Don't the people employed by the government operating the justice system have to give you this service even if they don't want to?
Caleb Jones 2017-08-02 11:10:08
given America’s 300 plus years of slavery then wouldn’t one conclude that America has always been a socialist country.You're too closely equating slavery with socialism. Socialism is more about a massive welfare state, a high number of laws, and income redistribution than it is about outright 1800's style slavery. (Though "soft" slavery certainly is a component.)
In the US you do have a right to education through high schoolCorrect, and I disagree with that, for the reasons I stated. In a free country (which the US has not been for over 100 years) you don't have the right to force anyone at gunpoint to give you anything for free, including high school, grammar school, etc.
Caleb, if this or my previous comment is causing this type of reaction…then please delete my comments… I’m not here for this type of nonsense.Free speech. Jack can say whatever he wants here and so can you. (Within the five simple rules of course.) If you can't handle the heat of free speech, stay out of the kitchen.
According to our laws, one has a right to a fair trial by jury of peers. Don’t the jury peeps have to be forced to show up to jury?No. Jury duty isn't mandatory. There are numerous legal ways to get out of jury duty if you're summoned. You can also avoid being summoned altogether by simply refusing to register to vote, like I do.
Don’t the people employed by the government operating the justice system have to give you this service even if they don’t want to?No. They chose that job voluntarily. No one forces you at gunpoint to be a cop or a federal employee office worker. And you can quit those jobs whenever you like. So working for the government on a voluntary basis is okay. (The problem is the size of government and what the government wants you do as an employee.)
Zan 2017-08-02 11:35:47
Good, thanks for the clarity... that's all I was asking. As for Jack, he was beginning to go down a nasty path that would turn an intelligent discussion into a stupid debate. He got way too much into his feelings.... it's like trying to talk to a woman about personal accountability... instead of having a reasonable conversation they become defensive and resort to name-calling and threats. Unfortunately, some men (who should be ruled by logic and reason) allow their emotional state take them down similar paths and I wasn't having any of that with Jack because that wasn't my intentions. Again, thanks for the clarity, I now have a better understanding.
joelsuf 2017-08-02 11:46:07
Meh. I tend to agree with George Carlin on this. But I shall watch the other video as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4
John Smith 2017-08-02 12:18:01
Slavery is still legal in the U.S. - they just call it "prison labor" now. Anyway, his basic point that having a right doesn't mean you have the right force people to give you shit or provide services for free is a good one, but there's too much left vs right talk to make it the best video on the subject. "Here's a one sided version of our position vs. a strawman version of the other side's position. We're the best! Go us!" Using free speech as an example, your post about how neither side wants it makes more sense than what he said. Yes, some on the left go overboard with their trigger warnings and safe spaces, but when some on the right claim to support free speech they really mean that they want to say racist and bigoted stuff without suffering consequences while making sure the rest of us can't say bad words on TV. He was immature talking about contraception too - like it's kind of shady to be sexually responsible. Besides, I don't know anyone no matter how far left they are who is demanding to get "$0.50 truck stop rubbers" for free. 😕 I also LOL'd when he suggested educating yourself at the library. Aren't libraries paid for with tax money? 🙄
Caleb Jones 2017-08-02 12:41:35
here’s too much left vs right talk to make it the best video on the subject. “Here’s a one sided version of our position vs. a strawman version of the other side’s position. We’re the best! Go us!” Using free speech as an example, your post about how neither side wants it makes more sense than what he said.Correct. That's because Steven Crowder is a partisan right-winger and is thus heavily biased in that direction, while I disagree completely with both the left and the right and am thus able to be more objective when pointing out the failings of either side.
Yes, some on the left go overboard with their trigger warnings and safe spaces, but when some on the right claim to support free speech they really mean that they want to say racist and bigoted stuff without suffering consequences while making sure the rest of us can’t say bad words on TV.Correct. EVERYONE hates free speech, both the left and the right. Only the tiny percentage of humans who are libertarians or anarcho-capitalists actually support the concept of free speech. However, again to be objective, right now, in this current era, the left obviously hates free speech more and are far less tolerant of opposing viewpoints than the right. Back in the 1980's and early 90's, the right hated it more, so this pendulum tends to swing.
I don’t know anyone no matter how far left they are who is demanding to get “$0.50 truck stop rubbers” for free.Then Google Sandra Fluke. She was famous for testifying before congress bitching that women should receive free government birth control. Fucking insane.
I also LOL’d when he suggested educating yourself at the library. Aren’t libraries paid for with tax money?I can't speak for Steven Crowder, but based on my opinions regarding taxes, local libraries paid for by local city taxes only are perfectly fine if the voters in those cities vote to have them and fund them via local taxation. Government and taxes are perfectly fine at the local/city level. It's when we get outside of the local level (county, state, province, federal, etc) do we start running into major problems.
joelsuf 2017-08-02 12:42:20
In the US you do have a right to education through high school (remember, the definition of a right it’s something due to somebody by legal guarantees). And free healthcare certainly could be a right.That's the argument of most of today's leftists who ignore what they learned about the USSR in history class. They think that because we pay so much taxes, that those taxes should go to education and healthcare instead of the military industrial complex. Makes sense so far. But they fail to understand that absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the government gets all the tax money, they will be able to do whatever they want with it. Which means that they would be able to manipulate what they give you. I'm not comfortable with giving anyone that much money or power. The left does, and in a decade or two when they realize that their freedoms have been completely taken away, they'll have to find something different to fight for. I got six words for them (or any statist, really): It's your funeral, and don't come running. They aren't completely wrong, especially about being anti-war (no one is more anti war than Anarcho-Capitalists), but what they do not understand is if you go back on the gold standard, eliminate all taxes, and make everything (even national/local defense) private, then there would be much less unemployment and you wouldn't even need a minimum wage/UBI because EVERYTHING would be cheap and accessible. Also our armed forces would have MUCH more incentive to fight invaders because there would be no draft (which there still is: Its called Public Education).
blueguitar 2017-08-02 12:46:33
Interesting and thought-provoking article and comments. Theoretically, rights and privileges are different. A right is given, a privilege is earned. But the idea of universal human rights isn't completely based on reality. It's an ideal (a good set of ideals, I believe, as far as I can tell). It's also a marketing strategy because they aren't truly universal human rights but the authors' beliefs about what should be universal human rights.(http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-5/8_udhr-abbr.htm) History shows us that government/cultural rights are mostly enforced by the society and powers that be. In other words, what's a right in one society is a privilege in another. To some degree, might makes right. Sadly, many people over the course of human history have acted in ways that disagree with these principles. Some disturbing examples, Aztec society supposedly believed it was their right to perform human sacrifices. Many Europeans believed it was okay to torture "witches," etc. And many Americans believed slavery was okay for many years and it was in fact a part of the legal framework. These are in conflict with Articles #3, 4, 5 of Universal Human Rights - they may seem obvious now, but apparently weren't at other points in history. An interesting, present-day example of rights and privileges: water (Steven Crowder talks about it in #6 of his video). (I would consider air an even more basic right, but that's a different subject) I don't have a full background to understand water rights in the Western US. But it seems to me that any water that fell from the sky onto one's land should be considered one's right to use. But any water originating from the another's land isn't really one's own water but is public commons. This would include ground water. Conversely, anything (water included) moving from someone's land (i,e, a boat or pollution) onto one's own land against one's will should be able to be negotiated or blocked. Obviously, this isn't easy applicable. What seems to be a simple "right" (the right to consume or utilize non-privately owned water) becomes a very complicated subject very quickly. Why? Because there's more than one view of what's a right or privilege and what's public and private. And many people's viewpoints are based, not what they believe to be truly "right", but on what best suits their own interests. Sometimes there isn't an obvious right or wrong. (i.e., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Rights_Protection_Act). Most societies seem to recognize a communal aspect of water (plus the fact that you can't really track a water molecule), which makes it relatively hard to have a society completely based on private property. Therefore, there will always be a level of socialism or "public commons" in society, at least when there are fundamental resources we all share. Ironically, the tragedy of the commons sometimes goes in conflict with the perception of what might be environmentalists' social views. (http://www.dummies.com/education/science/environmental-science/ten-real-life-examples-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/) By the way, contrast Riparian water rights with Prior Appropriations water rights. Another interesting idea that Caleb mentions - right versus privilege is somewhat like public versus private. For example, the public has the right to access health care, but private individuals are the ones who can elect a health care plan. Ultimately, people who want more public "privileges" for everyone usually advocate for a more shared, public society. In many cases, the solutions aren't as simple or obvious as what may seem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_law_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior-appropriation_water_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Rights_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_groundwater_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_waters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bow
Tony 2017-08-02 16:27:47
Correct, and I disagree with that, for the reasons I stated. In a free country (which the US has not been for over 100 years) you don’t have the right to force anyone at gunpoint to give you anything for free, including high school, grammar school, etc.By that definition any country that levies taxes is inherently unfree. In reality if you had a system whee 100% of government systems were paid for by usage fees, poor people would be less free. Somebody with money could capture a person who didn't have enough money to use the criminal justice system and keep them as slaves. If the poor person tried to go to the police they couldn't do anything because they would have no money to pay for it. In fact, you could capture a normal person and simply steal all their wealth and they would have no recourse for the same reason. A less extreme example is black people during the Jim Crow years. Until big government stepped in and protected them, they had less freedom than they do today. If a black man dated a white woman in the South he'd get hanged by an angry mob. They had less freedom to choose where to buy things, where to live, and where to work. Education falls in the same category. Back in the 1800's in the US, and in the modern day in many countries like China, the lack of universal public education meant the poor people, especially in rural areas, simply had to do without, and thus were limited in what they could do with their lives. A poor person in a rural area without public education is much less free than they would be if they did have access to that education.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-08-02 17:14:50
(for the record Slavery was practiced before 1776But that's not what you said. You said, "this country" practiced slavery for 300 plus years. As in, the United States. The United States hasn't even been in existence for 300 plus years. July 4th 1776-August 2nd 2017 = 241 years, 29 days. You then asked if the United States has always been socialist due to practicing slavery "for 300 plus years." I corrected you when I said that the U.S. had slaves only for 89 years (1776-1865). Yes, Britain practiced slavery within its English colonies before then, but asking whether "this country" has therefore been socialist for 300+ years is nonsensical. You are imputing the actions of a different sovereign nation unto us. Then, to add insult to injury, you accuse me of not using logic. This is projection.
and yes on paper it was abolished but still practiced over 100 years…ever heard of Jim Crow laws, etc…what do you think the 1950s and 60s Civil Rights movement was all about… so while you say, check my math. I would say check your reality).What? Jim Crow laws had nothing to do with slavery. The Civil Rights movement had nothing to do with slavery. Things like Jim Crow and legally mandated segregation were human rights violations to be sure, but didn't rise to the level of anything resembling fucking slavery. It is precisely YOU who is allowing white guilt and politically correct poetry to cloud your judgment! Check your PC!
No this isn’t about PC or white guilt or anti-white anything… it was ONLY about accuracy.I have just disproven your so called "accuracy" above. Your argument is racist against whites, overly exaggerated, hateful, and despicable.
No one is here to argue or fight…You spew white guilt and PC nonsense, you better believe you'll get a fight!
Just drop it…No! Apologize for your racism against whites first!
instead of having a reasonable conversation they become defensive and resort to name-calling and threats.Where have I name called you "like a woman?" Where have I threatened you "like a woman?" Check your reading comprehension. Then check your slander!
Jack Outside the Box 2017-08-02 18:15:12
Slavery is still legal in the U.S. – they just call it “prison labor” now.Yes! And that's a good thing. Why is it bad to enslave murderers, rapists, and child molesters? If you violate someone else's human rights, you forfeit your own. The 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which abolished slavery, states: "Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Well, if "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" then Congress may mandate slavery for prisoners. I fail to see the bad here. You don't want to be a slave? Here's an idea: Don't rape kids! Simple.
Anyway, his basic point that having a right doesn’t mean you have the right force people to give you shit or provide services for free is a good one, but there’s too much left vs right talk to make it the best video on the subject. “Here’s a one sided version of our position vs. a strawman version of the other side’s position. We’re the best! Go us!”The idea is that rights come from nature, not people. That means that in order to respect your rights, governments, and people in general, must do nothing, except get out of your way. But privileges come from people, and therefore, require affirmative behaviors on the part of people in order for your privileges to be secured.
but when some on the right claim to support free speech they really mean that they want to say racist and bigoted stuff without suffering consequencesWhat do you mean by "suffering consequences?" My human right to Free Speech means two things: 1. No level of government (federal, state, county, or local) - or any instrumentality thereof - may lift a single finger against me or administer a single negative consequence to me (actively or passively, openly or secretly, directly or indirectly) for exercising my right to Free Speech. No branch, denomination, bureaucracy, division, department, agency, instrumentality, functionary, individual politician or government agent, individual government appointee, or individual employee of the Federal Government, the 50 State governments, the county governments, or the local city governments (or villages or municipalities) may legally take any action (legislative, executive, judicial, bureaucratic, procedural, or otherwise) whatsoever to infringe upon any American's human right to Freedom of Speech (formally or informally), or administer a single penalty or negative consequence (whether actively or passively, directly or indirectly, formally or informally, openly or secretly) to any American or group of Americans for exercising their human right to Free Speech in any way they see fit! The Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment is guaranteed to secure the Free Speech of all Americans against literally all vertical levels of government (federal, state, county, and local), as well as every single horizontal aspect or individual functionary of every single vertical level of government within the United States! And yes, that includes public (government) college campuses. So yes, freedom from governmental consequences is indeed the definition of Free Speech. 2. No private citizen, group of private citizens, private organization, private institution, private corporation, or any combination of private individuals or private entities whatsoever may administer against me a single human rights violation as a consequence for the exercise of my right to Free Speech. No illegal action may be taken against me, or a single legal right or legal protection revoked, or a single human right violated by any private person or private group for the exercise of my Free Speech. So yes, freedom of speech means, by definition, freedom from all government consequences, as well as freedom from all illegal consequences (e.g. physical assault, murder, etc...) from private individuals. I ask again: What do you mean by "...without suffering consequences?"
while making sure the rest of us can’t say bad words on TV.Agreed. The existence of the FCC violates the First Amendment. That entire government agency must be abolished.
He was immature talking about contraception too – like it’s kind of shady to be sexually responsible.It's shady to demand I pay for it as if I owe you something.
I also LOL’d when he suggested educating yourself at the library. Aren’t libraries paid for with tax money?Some, not all. We have private libraries here, as well as governmental ones. And I believe that all public libraries, just like all public schools, should be abolished.
Zan 2017-08-02 18:19:37
Not a problem, Jack. I apologize. Have a good day.
Caleb Jones 2017-08-02 22:49:04
By that definition any country that levies taxes is inherently unfree.Incorrect, nor is that my definition. There are perfectly acceptable ways ways to tax your citizens in a free country. Read this for a list.
In reality if you had a system whee 100% of government systems were paid for by usage fees, poor people would be less free.I do not support such a system and never said I did.
A less extreme example is black people during the Jim Crow years. Until big government stepped in and protected them, they had less freedom than they do today. If a black man dated a white woman in the South he’d get hanged by an angry mob. They had less freedom to choose where to buy things, where to live, and where to work.That is not a good example since being hanged by an angry mob is and was illegal regardless of your skin color. If you're arguing that back then murder laws were not enforced against the killers of blacks, then that's a failure of government following the laws already on its books, not a need for more laws.
Back in the 1800’s in the US, and in the modern day in many countries like China, the lack of universal public education meant the poor people, especially in rural areas, simply had to do without, and thus were limited in what they could do with their lives.Incorrect. In the 1800's, especially the late 1800's, kids in rural areas did indeed go to school (small town schools that usually used the local church for class sessions) and the quality of the education they received was shockingly good as compared to today's public schools in the inner cities. Google around for some sample tests the typical 5th or 6th grader needed to pass back in the late 1800's. They were highly advanced. Moreover, even if you're correct (and you are not) in today's internet age in the US, it doesn't matter where you're physically located (rural or city or otherwise) in regards to education. This isn't the 1800's anymore.
JEB 2017-08-03 07:18:40
While I have become a lot more right-wing in the last couple of years, I want to point out that the American health care system (also before any type of socialization) was the highest-costing in the world, despite not being far from the best. American health care is still the most expensive in the world by far, and is still far from the best system. There are multiple factors that make the American system very expensive. 1) Private insurance = higher costs. All insurance companies have to make money, and they take a hefty charge. 2) Unregulated market for medicine. Your medicine costs are the highest in the world, despite the exact same drugs from the exact same companies are being sold in Europe for 1/3rd of the price. This is because you have so many links that have to make money from the sale of medicine. The manufacturer usually adds 90 % if the product is patented. The medical engross company adds another 50 %. A hospital or pharmacy adds 50 % as well. In countries with socialized medicine, only the manufacturer makes real money from medicines. Hospitals (public) and pharmacies (semi-private) only earn a small fraction (in Scandinavia it's about $2 per prescription for a private pharmacy). 3) Hyperinflated salary for doctors. While I believe that the European - and especially Scandinavian - model for socializing everything is also not a worthwhile strategy, I think that the American way of letting people die from curable diseases simply because they are not rich is a little extreme. If people could buy unbiased insurance policies that did not take into account their pre-existing conditions, then we could argue that people had a "choice". But refusing people insurance (and Thus letting them die if they were not able to pay the several hundred thousand dollars it cost to survive with said diseases) simply because they were unfortunate enough to be born with a hereditary disease has made America a dystopia in the eyes of many other parts of the world. Is it right to then force your neighbor to pay for it? Probably not. Could there be a better system in place (both in Europe and the US) that took into account the special cases. Even then, do you really think that a society which lets their sick and injured die in the streets is a good society? I'd rather we all pay a little more tax (And remember, the total cost for healthcare goes down at least 50 % for all socialized systems compared to the American one), essentially forcing everyone to pay for health insurance. Again, don't get me wrong: I completely agree that the West is full of over-priveledged people that have never held a job and demand that the government (meaning the taxpayer) take care of their every need, especially self-inflicted misfortunes. I think to some degree that all unemployment benefits should be cut and more effort should be put into getting people into either the "disabled" category (real disabilities) or on the hunt for a new job. But health - despite all the things you can do to avoid many diseases - is never completely under your control, and to treat it as such seems a little dehumanizing. I work with the treatment of cancer patients in my daily life, and I am glad that the 2 year olds with cancer can get their treatment, no matter how poor their mothers and fathers are.
Caleb Jones 2017-08-03 12:16:50
American health care is still the most expensive in the world by far, and is still far from the best system.Correct. The entire corporatist American health care system is a ripoff and a sham, as I examined here. I hate it utterly.
do you really think that a society which lets their sick and injured die in the streets is a good society? I’d rather we all pay a little more tax (And remember, the total cost for healthcare goes down at least 50 % for all socialized systems compared to the American one), essentially forcing everyone to pay for health insurance.That's because you live in Scandinavia and are thus following the Scandinavian Societal Programming you're accustomed to. Of course you can't have a society were people are dying in the streets, but I would rather work towards a solution to this problem based in freedom instead of automatically defaulting to one based on the coercion of innocent people.
JEB 2017-08-04 02:23:12
That’s because you live in Scandinavia and are thus following the Scandinavian Societal Programming you’re accustomed to.I am very aware, but fortunately the Red Pill and exposure to the manosphere (and the alt-right derivatives) has made it easier to root out most of the bullshit. I whole-heartedly despise most of the socialist protocols (rewarding single mothers, high unemployment benefits, unlimited free education, massive immigrant uptake, government support for art/culture/potato harvest/European Union etc. With regards to health care, I simply have a hard time finding the perfect system, especially regarding children. Society would be a lot easier if stupid, irresponsible people weren't the ones who had the most children.
John Smith 2017-08-04 12:06:11
@Jack ] Box Re: prison labor <blockquote> Yes! And that’s a good thing. Why is it bad to enslave murderers, rapists, and child molesters? If you violate someone else’s human rights, you forfeit your own. </blockquote> There a few problems with your assumptions. For one thing, not everyone in prison is a murder, rapist and/or child molester and for another, not everyone who was convicted of those crimes is guilty. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jailed-innocent-record-number-people-exonerated-2015-n510196 According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, almost half the incarcerated population is in there for drug offenses. Should they forfeit their human rights also? I don't even think drugs should be illegal, and the incarceration incentive provided by prison labor is one of the things preventing legalization. Gotta maintain that prison population so we have slave labor to lease to private, for-profit businesses. Re: Free Speech <blockquote> I ask again: What do you mean by “…without suffering consequences?” </blockquote> By "consequences" I was primarily referring to criticism, shame, mockery, etc. For example, people on the alt-right want to say racist and bigoted things without having what they said being labeled as racist or bigoted. Other consequences could be things like advertisers pulling there ads or getting suspended from a TV show. When Phil Robertson was suspended for making anti-gay comments in an interview I heard a lot of noise about "freedom of speech."
Kurt 2017-08-04 13:59:24
You said this:
"Don’t the people employed by the government operating the justice system have to give you this service even if they don’t want to?" No. They chose that job voluntarily. No one forces you at gunpoint to be a cop or a federal employee office worker. And you can quit those jobs whenever you like. So working for the government on a voluntary basis is okay. (The problem is the size of government and what the government wants you do as an employee.)But in your post you said this:
You have a right to health care. That means no one can prevent you from purchasing health care products or services. It does not mean you have the right to force a doctor at gunpoint to provide you with free health care services against his will. That’s slavery.So how is having the right to a fair trial in our court system any different? Can't the doctor just as easily choose not to be a doctor as the judge or prosecutor choose not to engage in their professions?
Caleb Jones 2017-08-04 14:17:01
Can’t the doctor just as easily choose not to be a doctor as the judge or prosecutor choose not to engage in their professions?The judge gets paid for his work. I'm talking about forcing the doctor to do his work for free. I know how you (and other left-wingers) will attempt to answer that, so I'll save us some back-and-forth time. Yes, if you had a country where there were two health care systems, one government and one private, then new doctors could choose to work for either one by making an informed decision, understanding the pro's and con's of either. But if you mandate that ALL health care is "free," then at some point down the road, not initially but eventually, you will have to force doctors at gunpoint to provide free care, since there won't be enough doctors to provide their services to the entire population at the low wages government will be able to provide. European countries get around this (temporarily) by operating under completely bankrupt health care systems that run at negative billions of dollars a year, as I showed here, but even that is temporary and can't last forever. These countries will eventually (and it may take a while) be forced to either use private health care options, or somehow force doctors at gunpoint to provide free (or way too lowly paid) services to their "free" recipients, which is 100% of the population. None of this applies to judges and prosecutors, since only a percentage of the population require these services, and when they do, their engagement is brief, whereas 100% of the population require health care, and engagement is not brief at all, especially in their old age. For example, I'm at the doctor several times a year (and I'm healthy!), but I've only needed a judge twice in my entire life.
Walter 2017-08-04 20:15:36
I agree with that. Healthcare is a very complex issue. IMO the key to fixing this system involves a. techaing people how to be healthy in the first place and b. promoting startups that lower healthcare costs. I know that, as a libertarian, you disagree with all form of government subsidies. Would you make an exception for an hypothetically very promising startup that had the potential to make healthcare much cheaper but required a lot of money from the government?
Jack Outside the Box 2017-08-05 06:13:12
There a few problems with your assumptions. For one thing, not everyone in prison is a murder, rapist and/or child molester and for another, not everyone who was convicted of those crimes is guilty.Just because not everyone convicted is guilty doesn't mean we must give lenient punishment to the actual guilty just to spare the potentially innocent. That would be very convenient for the guilty, now wouldn't it? Hiding behind the innocent like that. No system of justice is perfect, but the 5th Amendment mandates being proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." There will still be mistakes and exceptions, but we can't base an entire justice system on those.
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, almost half the incarcerated population is in there for drug offenses. Should they forfeit their human rights also? I don’t even think drugs should be illegal,I agree that drugs should be legalized. But while they are still against the law (as ridiculous as that is), I do not feel sorry for people stupid enough to knowingly do something illegal. They know what the consequences are going in, and they choose to get involved with drugs anyway. Their arrogance leads to their slave labor. So yeah, I'm fine with that, even while speaking out against the drug laws and believing that all drugs should be legal.
and the incarceration incentive provided by prison labor is one of the things preventing legalization. Gotta maintain that prison population so we have slave labor to lease to private, for-profit businesses.I am against private, for profit prisons, or leasing slave labor to private corporations. I agree that private prisons should be abolished and the entire profit motive should be completely taken out of our justice system. Then drugs can be legalized and we can go back to enslaving only real criminals.
By “consequences” I was primarily referring to criticism, shame, mockery, etc. For example, people on the alt-right want to say racist and bigoted things without having what they said being labeled as racist or bigoted.It's fine to label something racist or bigoted. The problem, however, with many of these ad hominem attacks is that they are intellectually vapid. Many people who want to abolish political correctness (like myself) want to be debated on the merits of our arguments instead of just tossing out the latest PC buzzword of the week and calling it a day. When you name-call the person, you feel like you are above having to even answer his arguments with counter-arguments. And that smugness is what the alt-right objects to. Less labeling, more intellectual deconstruction. And on that, I agree with them.
Other consequences could be things like advertisers pulling there ads or getting suspended from a TV show. When Phil Robertson was suspended for making anti-gay comments in an interview I heard a lot of noise about “freedom of speech.”I'm fine with private businesses banning, censoring, or de-platforming anyone they want. It is their private property after all. What I don't like is the double standard when it comes to false advertising. For example, Twitter's speech code prohibits racist tweets, and yet has no problem with the hashtag "kill all white men." If they want to de-platform those they don't like, fine, but they need to stop lying to their customers about prohibiting offensive posts and start enforcing their terms of service in an honest and impartial way. Otherwise, a lawsuit for false advertising and "one-sided enforcement" may be possible in certain cases. Also, there is a difference between protesting and disrupting. A protest is protected speech. A disruption is a crime. Many politically incorrect speakers have had their human right to Free Speech violated on government college campuses (who must observe the First Amendment) in the form of verbal disruptions and heckling (there is an actual law against "heckler's veto") from PC social justice warriors. Other students physically blocked entrances to auditoriums and prevented people who wanted to hear the speech from getting in (a form of kidnapping). And, of course, the social justice terrorist organization Antifa responds to anti-PC speech with physical violence, vandalism, assault and battery, attempted murder, and so forth. I do not support the alt right in any way, but I'll gladly stand with them against social justice cry bullies and physically violent terrorists in support of their human right to speak.
Kurt 2017-08-05 17:18:31
I’m talking about forcing the doctor to do his work for free.When has this ever happened?
Kurt 2017-08-05 17:23:28
I know how you (and other left-wingers) will attempt to answer thatSo because I'm pointing out the silliness and naiveté of some libertarian thought I am now left-wing?
Kurt 2017-08-05 17:34:25
But if you mandate that ALL health care is “free,” then at some point down the road, not initially but eventually, you will have to force doctors at gunpoint to provide free care, since there won’t be enough doctors to provide their services to the entire population at the low wages government will be able to provide.This is silly. Like other government services it ain't free. Taxpayer money funds it. I think it's more likely that the government compensation for doctors would simply increase until supply and demand were in balance. It's not like all of our military contractors are giving up the defense industry because the government awards contracts to the lowest bidder, or our best generals are all quitting the military because they can make more money as mercenaries. But your weird logic would indicate that this would be so. Unless, I actually have to pay individually for my own share of national defense if I want it and no one's told me yet?
Caleb Jones 2017-08-05 20:15:39
When has this ever happened?It has never happened since, as I clearly said in my comment, nations that pursue single payer choose to bankrupt their healthcare systems instead. Western governments are very good at maintaining bankrupt governments for a very long time (by cooking the books, printing money, raising taxes, importing millions of third-world immigrants, and doing other horrible things to their taxpayers).
So because I’m pointing out the silliness and naiveté of some libertarian thought I am now left-wing?Most of your political opinions are left of center, yes or no?
This is silly. Like other government services it ain’t free. Taxpayer money funds it.Please don't play dumb. I know that and you know I know that. That's why I put "free" in quotes. If you're going to resort to these kinds of things, I'm not going to be able to carry on a rational discussion with you.
I think it’s more likely that the government compensation for doctors would simply increase until supply and demand were in balance.Then please explain why almost every country that tries this bankrupts their health care systems.
It’s not like all of our military contractors are giving up the defense industry because the government awards contracts to the lowest bidder, or our best generals are all quitting the military because they can make more money as mercenaries.Correct. The well-connected companies/people make tons of cash off the taxpayers' backs while the government slowly bankrupts itself. That is exactly what the US does with its military and what happens in most European countries who have single payer healthcare systems. If you'd like to prove me wrong, show me a real country (tiny island nations don't count) that has had a single payer healthcare system for decades where the health care system isn't bankrupt (i.e. running at negative billions of dollars a year). Based on your past inability to answer my direct questions, I won't be holding my breath. Good thing you're not a left-winger!
Kurt 2017-08-06 15:05:53
hmm. You said:
you will have to force doctors at gunpoint to provide free care,and then when I challenged you on that you said:
It has never happened since, as I clearly said in my comment, nations that pursue single payer choose to bankrupt their healthcare systems instead.So, yeah, that's all I was getting at. Your straw man stuff.
Most of your political opinions are left of center, yes or no?I wouldn't say I'm necessarily clearly right wing or left wing. I am an asshole. We argue with everyone!
If you’d like to prove me wrong, show me a real country (tiny island nations don’t count) that has had a single payer healthcare system for decades where the health care system isn’t bankrupt (i.e. running at negative billions of dollars a year). Based on your past inability to answer my direct questions, I won’t be holding my breath.1. I can't argue with this since I didn't claim anything to the contrary. You just distorted my point and argued against that. 2. ?? Unless they were more examples of 1, of which there are a few.
Caleb Jones 2017-08-06 15:50:28
I don't think you know what strawman means. Talking about forcing doctors at gunpoint isn't a strawman when I'm the one who brought up the hypothetical concept myself, in the article. It's a point of illustration, not something I've ever said happens or will ever happen. Governments will bankrupt themselves instead.
I wouldn’t say I’m necessarily clearly right wing or left wing.You're lying. I've never seen you put forth a right-wing view here, yet I've seen you get very defensive (more than most) regarding left-wing views. And you didn't answer my question yet again, just as I knew you wouldn't, so we're done here. I can show a real life, (reasonably) free market health care system that worked reasonably well (America during the 1950's and 60's). If you are for a single-payer government health care system, you need to show that system working somewhere that isn't bankrupt.
Gio 2017-08-07 17:39:46
I absolutely agree! people are not entitled to healthcare and college and a doctor to work is slavery. I don't want to work for free and don't want others to give me free stuff. Similarly, the doctor has a right to have a burger, but he should not expect the guy at McDonald to flip his burger for a wage that he can't live on. That's the closest thing to slavery! If minimum wage was enough to live a decent life on, and the cost for medications and insurance was fair, people could actually afford to pay for their healthcare.
Earl Jones 2018-01-03 11:39:26
Comment deleted for violation of Rule Number One.