[Zyx]

There is no lawlessness in that and government serves to prosecute those that would violate those rights.

First off, this here is force and coercion. Second off, your fancy quotation isn't in the constitution: law-making is.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Individual]

No, because the Law is designed to protect Individual rights, and as long as you don't violate the Law you have nothing to fear from the government. Note: There is a Law that protects me from you and you from me in the equation.

Here's something else in short.

James Madison (March 16, 1751 - June 28, 1836) was an American politician and political philosopher who served as the fourth President of the United States (1809-1817), and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Considered to be the "Father of the Constitution", he was the principal author of the document. In 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, still the most influential commentary on the Constitution. The first President to have served in the United States Congress, he was a leader in the 1st United States Congress, drafted many basic laws and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution (said to be based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights), and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights". As a political theorist, Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

[Individual]

You only lose your freedom and liberty when you transgress against others, do you really not understand that point? Did you think that rapists and murderers should go unchecked in society?

[Zyx]

he was a leader in the 1st United States Congress, drafted many basic laws

Just as I suspected. You claimed that the Government ought not create laws, yet here, the Founder, wrote many laws the second the opportunity arose.

Please, give up.

You only lose your freedom and liberty when you transgress against others

Either you permit government force or you don't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[SecretSquirrel]

You only lose your freedom and liberty when you transgress against others, do you really not understand that point? Did you think that rapists and murderers should go unchecked in society?

you can NEVER lose your basic human rights, even if you are a murderer or rapist, that why we use the word inalienable.

You of course have no right to live in society, as it is a privilege. The thing to do with destructive psychos is to exile them.

Caging of or killing human beings is not a legitimate use of force by the body politic

[ingliz]

And where is the constitutional basis for requiring everyone to buy insurance?

You have answered the question yourself:

It is OK for a state to make citizens pay for healthcare insurance. Healthcare is not a right, it is a privilege, and the state may regulate it by demanding insurance.

There is no amendment to the Constitution granting healthcare as a right for all citizens.

But, oddly enough, the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require prisoners, as part of their humane treatment during detention, to be guaranteed the right to health care.

Currently prisoners are the only group who are specifically granted the right to healthcare in the US.

[TheRedMenace]

Red Menace, Did you know that Americans gave over 300 Billion dollars to charity in the years 2009 2008?

Define charity.

Then I've already explained that Blue Cross, which has 100 million customers is a Corporation and if the idea is to provide insurance for people, why not form your own Corporation and provide the services you feel you and others need?

Because the very people who need health care don't have enough money, so even if they pool their resources they won't have enough.

Or start your own version of a religious charity or a Red Cross type charity, I mean if you really feel that this is important for the country, the solution is very simple and requires no immoral act on your part.

No, the solution is not that simple. They will not be able to get enough money if they rely entirely on voluntary donations.

Zxy, Note the Founders did not have healthcare schemes when they put pen to parchment 230+ years ago, they also didn't have income taxes, wonder why?

So? Why are their opinions so important?

Then there are cases where income taxes have been ruled unConstitutional too.

Really? When?

You cannot pass a law that is unConstitutional.

Income tax is not unconstitutional. How can it be? It's in the constitution!

Then find me the Framer that believed in force and coercion...

They all did. After all, they created a state, not an anarchist society. All states use force to accomplish certain objectives. All of the founders believed that the state should use force.

[Individual]

So based on the original question, 'Ignorant or Immoral?' I'm finding a great number here that are unable to answer the question at hand. Why don't you form your own health insurance company or charity and provide coverage to those you deem worthy? So far I see one really immoral answer and an number of ignorant ones based on the answers and diversions being presented.

Here's a starting point and I'll add one of my own based on the conflict of interest problem and receiving a fair and unbiased trial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protes ... _arguments

If the Protester is to be judged fairly in a court system funded by the taxes taken from that Protester then the Court holds a conflict of interest in the case. A Judge, in ruling for the Defendant is ruling against his own self interest and self preservation as a sitting Judge, it is the revenue collected from the Defendant that pays for the Court and the livelihood of the Judge and other Court Officers such as the Prosecutor.

If more than the 4 million Tax Evaders were joined by 100 million more the Court and the Government would lose effectiveness as a direct loss of revenue from said Tax Evaders. How can one get a 'fair' trial with the deck being stacked against them? Under any other circumstances can you give an example of a Judge not recusing him or herself for having a financial interest in the case? Note that even elected officials have to give up certain holdings and private positions once elected, Dick Cheney and Haliburton make a good example.

You have answered the question yourself:

It is OK for a state to make citizens pay for healthcare insurance. Healthcare is not a right, it is a privilege, and the state may regulate it by demanding insurance.

There is no amendment to the Constitution granting healthcare as a right for all citizens.

But, oddly enough, the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require prisoners, as part of their humane treatment during detention, to be guaranteed the right to health care.

Currently prisoners are the only group who are specifically granted the right to healthcare in the US.

[/quote]

Healthcare is not a privilege it is a good. Healthcare is not a right it is a good.
Not everyone can afford a Porsche but many want a Porsche, houses are goods too.

Seeing I brought automobiles into the fray I'll point out that you are required to carry insurance based on the point that driving can kill or maim other drivers, you can also do property damage to others and there lies the difference.... me eating a jelly doughnut won't clog your arteries and there is already a number of laws on the books requiring people to pay their bills when they enter into an agreement for services provided. Hospitals should be allowed to refuse service just like any other business and if a Doctor wants to live up to the code he willingly gave into, then he/she should pick up the tab if he/she knows the patient can't afford to pay.


[mb edit: Do not double post]

[TheRedMenace]

So based on the original question, 'Ignorant or Immoral?' I'm finding a great number here that are unable to answer the question at hand.

That's because it's a loaded question.

Why don't you form your own health insurance company or charity and provide coverage to those you deem worthy?

Because the very people who need health care don't have enough money, so even if they pool their resources they won't have enough.

No, the solution is not that simple. They will not be able to get enough money if they rely entirely on voluntary donations.

Why do you think certain people should be denied health care? What possible benefit could that create?

[Northern-Anarchist-X]

Specifically, what exactly makes you think the state has a right to exist?

No, because the Law is designed to protect Individual rights, and as long as you don't violate the Law you have nothing to fear from the government. Note: There is a Law that protects me from you and you from me in the equation.

Unless you happen to be cast into a group as to which the law aserts itself against. In otherwords, any human beings.

The state is inherently committing social violence against us all: total freedom shall only be sacrificed if one wants to survive, and total liberties may only be sacrificed in a voluntary relationship.

[DubiousDan]

No, because the Law is designed to protect Individual rights, and as long as you don't violate the Law you have nothing to fear from the government. Note: There is a Law that protects me from you and you from me in the equation.

I assume you mean this in the context of the United States of America, because otherwise the statement becomes absurd.

However, even in the United States of America, this has clearly been proven false. Notice the example of Blacks and Amerindians. They didn’t have to violate the Law to have something to fear.
Furthermore, for your statement to be true, the state would have to be infallible.
In addition those with wealth can use the law as a weapon against those without wealth.
And of course, you are ignoring the entire history of the United States which is a history of injustice. This is not unusual for states, states are fundamentally unjust.

And of course, there is the matter of design. Where in the design of law is there a mechanism which protects rights?
Law is the product of faction. It is not in the least concerned with rights. It is fundamentally unjust, because faction is not concerned with justice, but interest. Yes, there is the Bill of Rights. However, their meaning depends on the opinion of five political appointees. Without enforcement, their meaning becomes meaningless as Andrew Jackson demonstrated.

[Individual]

So nobody here can tell me why they are willing or unable to start their own healthcare company that provides what they want. You'd think with 70 million people supporting Obama in the last election at least one could come up with a moral ethical healthcare system that didn't use force or coercion to achieve its ends. I guess the answer is both 'Ignorant and Immoral".

As to the 'loaded question' remark---------- provide an example that is neither ignorant or immoral.
I would have to assume you understood the term immoral based on using force or coercion to continue.

And to the passing laws by the Framers, they nowhere in the Constitution passed laws to give goods to anyone. And roads were warranted to facilitate mail delivery, even though private roads would work much better.

[TheRedMenace]

So nobody here can tell me why they are willing or unable to start their own healthcare company that provides what they want.

Because the very people who need health care don't have enough money, so even if they pool their resources they won't have enough.

No, the solution is not that simple. They will not be able to get enough money if they rely entirely on voluntary donations.

I would have to assume you understood the term immoral based on using force or coercion to continue.

That's not what the definition of "immoral" is.

And to the passing laws by the Framers, they nowhere in the Constitution passed laws to give goods to anyone.

First of all, health care is a service, not a good. Second, there are articles in the Constitution that order the government to give services to people. Also, why does their opinion matter? That's totally irrelevant to today.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Regulating the money supply? That's a service.

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

That's a service.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Protection of patents and copyrights? They don't exist in a vacuum, the government has to enforce them. That's another service.

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Courts? Another service.

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

Protection of shipping from pirates? That's a service too.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

National defense? That's another service.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,

That's a service.

by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,

Another service.

to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor

Another service.

and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

That's also a service.

[anticlimacus]

SO if you are not stupid and are capable of sending funds to any charity of your choice or forming one of your own, then you would be immoral to force other free people to do it in your name. Isn't that what you are doing in fact, immorally taking(by force if needed)money from one person and then pretending it came from you or your group? That's what it looks like when you force another to contribute against their will and then the leaders of your group take credit for it, in your name. Immorality at it's peak and definitely not freedom loving people.

Basically all you are doing is taking freedom in relation to abstract individuals and then throwing those abstract monads into society with the moral principles you derive from some fantacy individual completely divorced from social relations and power. It must be wonderful to only envision how free people are in a formal and abstract principle regardless of whether or not that translates into reality (I mean to think the poor person working 60 hours a week to support her family in the ghetto is really free!)--but then again, reality is not the place for bourgeois liberalism, libertarianism, etc. Morality is for the abstract individual who lives only in relation to his/her wants and property.

So nobody here can tell me why they are willing or unable to start their own healthcare company that provides what they want

I think you know the answer to this...It does not take much thought. For instance, if a person had the capital to start one's own health insurance company (and compete with the monopolies), would that one really need health insurance in the first place? Again, you are envisioning the perfectly informed individual with all the means necessary in order to accomplish his/her desires. The clouds are nice to look at, but they are not conducive for living--stand on them, and you fall right through...

[Individual]

Monopolies? I remember when people thought Rockefeller had a monopoly, he never did and when the government broke his company up the People ended up hurting from it as cost went up. So much for government intrusion into something most don't understand.

I like how people lay the "they can't afford it" ploy on this idea, when in fact many of the people that don't have insurance do so by choice, then there's the question of all the illegals getting free healthcare too. I see people with millions in the bank calling for this massive takeover of private business and I find it odd that a study shows that government run medicare turns away more claims than private sector insurance.... hmm, I guess the President lied about that too.

SO! Nobody here wants government run healthcare systems? And Red Menace is immoral for wanting to steal money from one group that has no interest in this scheme, but they somehow are burdened why?

To let everyone know where I stand, I'm 47 years old and run 5 miles in 41 minutes, 3-4 times per week, I watch what I eat and refuse to carry health insurance and have paid cash for all services including a broken arm. I will be incarcerated for refusing to carry health insurance as I can afford it, but see it as pointless when I also have a DNR in case I ever have a heart attack. I don't consume drugs or alcohol and don't smoke, I think that falls under a drug. So the argument of paying for it is moot in my position. Then I haven't burdened the system with children of my own and have to pay for everyone else's brat kids.

Healthcare is a good, not a right and taking from one group and giving to another is immoral, accepting stolen goods is also immoral and I myself fin those willing to take things that do not belong to them as immoral. If you oh so virtuous ones think it such a wonderful idea then why are you (that want this) unwilling to pay for it? There's no virtue in thievery no matter how twisted you tell the tale, theft is theft.

I am not my brothers keeper, nor he mine.

Social relations? Yeah I am responsible for my life and you are responsible for yours, is that too difficult or do you hang out with losers that mooch off their parents at the age of 30?

[anticlimacus]

Social relations? Yeah I am responsible for my life and you are responsible for yours,

Your life does not--and nor does any human life--occur in a vacuum. Whether you like it or not, your actions are limitted, both consciously and unconsciously, by other social actors; and your actions affect other social actors beyond your own foreseeable horizon. Therefore, just as liberty is not asbolute, there is no such thing as "responsibility" in the abstract to be assumed. Responsibility always has a socio-historical context, and is born out of social relations, not isolated individuals. So for instance: Responsible for your life, in terms of what? And by what social power is that responsibility guaranteed or enforced? Why and how were such mores historically developed?--you seem to be overlooking these questions, and assuming individualism and the morality that goes with it, as if it fell from the sky.

[TheRedMenace]

I like how people lay the "they can't afford it" ploy on this idea, when in fact many of the people that don't have insurance do so by choice,

How do you know?

SO! Nobody here wants government run healthcare systems?

I do.

And Red Menace is immoral for wanting to steal money from one group that has no interest in this scheme, but they somehow are burdened why?

What's immoral about wanting people to have health care? What about all the other things government does, such as the court systems? Is it immoral to "steal" from one person so that someone else can have a lawyer represent them? What about firefighters and police, those agencies require taxes in order to function. Of course, everyone benefits from a healthy society, in the same way everyone benefits from public education, even those who never went to public school.

To let everyone know where I stand, I'm 47 years old and run 5 miles in 41 minutes, 3-4 times per week, I watch what I eat and refuse to carry health insurance and have paid cash for all services including a broken arm.

You're lucky that you can afford that. Millions can't.

I don't consume drugs or alcohol and don't smoke, I think that falls under a drug. So the argument of paying for it is moot in my position. Then I haven't burdened the system with children of my own and have to pay for everyone else's brat kids.

Does it make you angry when firefighters put out a fire at your neighbor's house? Because they are paid with OUR MONEY. Why should my money pay to put out someone else's fire that was probably started by their bratty kids?

Healthcare is a good, not a right and taking from one group and giving to another is immoral, accepting stolen goods is also immoral and I myself fin those willing to take things that do not belong to them as immoral.

So using a public defender is immoral? Calling 911 is immoral?

I am not my brothers keeper, nor he mine.

That's not how society works.

[Individual]

You want a government run healthcare system but you don't want to pay for it, that makes you immoral. Taking things that don't belong to you and are the property of others is theft and doing it with a gun (force) is immoral.

I don't want government run healthcare or government regulated health insurance, I can enter into an agreement with an insurance company or healthcare provider if I choose.... that's freedom. Government intrusion is not.

"What's immoral about wanting other people to have health care?" Nothing if you want to donate your resources step up and be a Man, but using force to take things from people with little or no interest is the act of a criminal. Robin Hood was a criminal although it makes a nice little story it doesn't change the fact that Robin Hood was immoral.

Let me add that being in possession of stolen goods is a crime as well, so knowingly accepting property that doesn't or didn't belong to you is also a criminal act... there again immoral.

I really like the work going on at the SPCA, so I donate money to the SPCA and send over a truckload of hay and feed from time to time. Now why again do you have a problem funding the things you feel are virtuous?

[MB.]

Individual, you have some very interesting beliefs about the nature of the American public option 'health-care' system not to mention morality, immorality, freedom and virtue.

I don't want government run healthcare or government regulated health insurance, I can enter into an agreement...

Thankfully, the American system does not legislate at your or my behest.

[RonPaulalways]

I think generally, a minority are immoral, in the sense that they lack a more developed sense of morality that respects their fellow man's individual liberty -not in the sense of being malicious or sadistic, and a majority are ignorant. If you take some time talking to most left-leaning individuals, they will usually start coming around to your side. They just haven't been told that it's possible to have a society that respects individual liberty, and have taken it as a given that government does not need to maximize people's liberty.

The dedicated leftists on the other hand are generally immoral because they do not care about the society they live in/have a deep attachment to its people.