All the industry is gone. Mass importation of cheap labor. University fees up to 9000 pounds a year. What work is there? Duh.
Long-term jobless 'could face compulsory manual labour', page 7
privacy
reply posted on 10-11-2010 @ 04:04 PM by Maslo
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
Actually it is. The law which forbids refusing to provide urgent medical help to someone whose life is threatened, while being able to easily provide it (and outlaws hospitals right to refuse urgent medical help). Unless you claim this law is also unconstitutional and should be abolished, you must agree with at least basic (lifesaving) form of welfare, because it stems from this law, and its essentially the same.
Actually it is. The law which forbids refusing to provide urgent medical help to someone whose life is threatened, while being able to easily provide it (and outlaws hospitals right to refuse urgent medical help). Unless you claim this law is also unconstitutional and should be abolished, you must agree with at least basic (lifesaving) form of welfare, because it stems from this law, and its essentially the same.
reply posted on 10-11-2010 @ 04:17 PM by harvib
reply to post by Maslo
Even if the "society": that is kind enough to provide you with your basic needs is the same society that stole it from you in the first place. And now demands allegiance, tribute, and labor in exchange? Not saying this is the case but just asking a hypothetical.
Or maybe you haven't really thought about it and have just bought into the claims. Does it really make sense that a group of individuals that have worked their lives to accumulate as much wealth as possible through any means possible is going to be a just source of humanitarian efforts?
Your logic doesn't make sense to me. Are you really under the belief that because something occurs that it makes it necessary and the only option?
If society provided you with basic needs that you otherwise would not be able to get, you should repay it at least with some part time easy job. There is nothing preventing you, now that you have the needs.
Even if the "society": that is kind enough to provide you with your basic needs is the same society that stole it from you in the first place. And now demands allegiance, tribute, and labor in exchange? Not saying this is the case but just asking a hypothetical.
It works, with problems, as I said I could envision better systems, but it is better than nothing at all I think.
Or maybe you haven't really thought about it and have just bought into the claims. Does it really make sense that a group of individuals that have worked their lives to accumulate as much wealth as possible through any means possible is going to be a just source of humanitarian efforts?
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by harvib
You make the assumption that theft is the only way to "help someone whose life is threatened".
It often is. Otherwise there would be no such situations happening.
Your logic doesn't make sense to me. Are you really under the belief that because something occurs that it makes it necessary and the only option?
reply posted on 10-11-2010 @ 04:20 PM by harvib
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
Actually it is. The law which forbids refusing to provide urgent medical help to someone whose life is threatened, while being able to easily provide it (and outlaws hospitals right to refuse urgent medical help). Unless you claim this law is also unconstitutional and should be abolished, you must agree with at least basic (lifesaving) form of welfare, because it stems from this law, and its essentially the same.
According to your previous arguments the hospital should have legal justification to rob the other patients in order to pay for the emergency services of one. Do you believe this to be the case?
reply posted on 10-11-2010 @ 04:23 PM by BigTimeCheater
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
Actually it is. The law which forbids refusing to provide urgent medical help to someone whose life is threatened, while being able to easily provide it (and outlaws hospitals right to refuse urgent medical help). Unless you claim this law is also unconstitutional and should be abolished, you must agree with at least basic (lifesaving) form of welfare, because it stems from this law, and its essentially the same.
Uh, not quite.
Lets deal in fact here, not your wishful opinions.
reply posted on 10-11-2010 @ 04:38 PM by Maslo
reply to post by harvib
How can is stole from and provide for the same individual? It stoles from taxpayers, and provides for welfare recipients, these individuals are seldom the same - either someone is a net provider, or a net receiver from the system. Welfare is REDISTRIBUTION, that means you dont get the same what you payed into, either you get a net more (receiver) or less (provider). If you are a receiver, it can demand labor in exchange after it helped you - to minimize the need for providers and get at least some of value back directly.
I am certain they (politicians) also profit from the system (thats one of the reasons why it is not optimally efficient), so its not only from humanitarian thought. But regardless of this, I still think its better than nothing at all.
You claim that there are other ways to effectivelly help the poor than government welfare and they would be sufficient. If it was true, why we dont see them in action? Why we still need welfare? Why was it even needed to be introduced, if such a help service (charity of that magnitude) can spontaneously arise from the free market, or what alternative do you propose?
Even if the "society": that is kind enough to provide you with your basic needs is the same society that stole it from you in the first place. And now demands allegiance, tribute, and labor in exchange? Not saying this is the case but just asking a hypothetical.
How can is stole from and provide for the same individual? It stoles from taxpayers, and provides for welfare recipients, these individuals are seldom the same - either someone is a net provider, or a net receiver from the system. Welfare is REDISTRIBUTION, that means you dont get the same what you payed into, either you get a net more (receiver) or less (provider). If you are a receiver, it can demand labor in exchange after it helped you - to minimize the need for providers and get at least some of value back directly.
Does it really make sense that a group of individuals that have worked their lives to accumulate as much wealth as possible through any means possible is going to be a just source of humanitarian efforts?
I am certain they (politicians) also profit from the system (thats one of the reasons why it is not optimally efficient), so its not only from humanitarian thought. But regardless of this, I still think its better than nothing at all.
Your logic doesn't make sense to me. Are you really under the belief that because something occurs that it makes it necessary and the only option?
You claim that there are other ways to effectivelly help the poor than government welfare and they would be sufficient. If it was true, why we dont see them in action? Why we still need welfare? Why was it even needed to be introduced, if such a help service (charity of that magnitude) can spontaneously arise from the free market, or what alternative do you propose?
reply posted on 10-11-2010 @ 04:44 PM by Maslo
Originally posted by harvib
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
Actually it is. The law which forbids refusing to provide urgent medical help to someone whose life is threatened, while being able to easily provide it (and outlaws hospitals right to refuse urgent medical help). Unless you claim this law is also unconstitutional and should be abolished, you must agree with at least basic (lifesaving) form of welfare, because it stems from this law, and its essentially the same.
According to your previous arguments the hospital should have legal justification to rob the other patients in order to pay for the emergency services of one. Do you believe this to be the case?
Yes, lets face it, thats how it works - undeniable emergency services of uninsured are payed from taxes (stealing from others, not just the patients), and it is legal. Yes, I believe that it should be that way, because the only alternative is not providing medical emergencies for uninsured, and that is unacceptable to me.
reply posted on 10-11-2010 @ 04:50 PM by Maslo
Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
Actually it is. The law which forbids refusing to provide urgent medical help to someone whose life is threatened, while being able to easily provide it (and outlaws hospitals right to refuse urgent medical help). Unless you claim this law is also unconstitutional and should be abolished, you must agree with at least basic (lifesaving) form of welfare, because it stems from this law, and its essentially the same.
Uh, not quite.
Lets deal in fact here, not your wishful opinions.
Why not? Elaborate.
reply posted on 10-11-2010 @ 05:10 PM by harvib
reply to post by Maslo
That is not what I asked. I asked if you would still support such a policy if the organization that is "redistributing" to the disenfranchised is responsible for the disenfranchisement?
Or maybe this is the "nothing at all". Profit working for profit's sake.
Is it possible that the whole welfare scheme was never introduced for humanitarian efforts? Could it be a means of control and a scheme to make the people reliant on an oligarch (including those not on welfare)? ]
As far as an alternative. What happened to personal responsibility? What happened to a focus on self sufficiency as opposed to corporate/ government reliance? Maybe thinking for our selves and not buying the BS? Maybe we don't constantly give up our own rights because we are told it is necessary? Or empower an organization for the same reason?
Again that is not what I asked.
I asked if you thought their was legal justification for a hospital to steal or extort money from the other patients in order to pay for emergency services for one.
How can is stole from and provide for the same individual? It stoles from taxpayers, and provides for welfare recipients, these individuals are seldom the same...
That is not what I asked. I asked if you would still support such a policy if the organization that is "redistributing" to the disenfranchised is responsible for the disenfranchisement?
I am certain they (politicians) also profit from the system (thats one of the reasons why it is not optimally efficient), so its not only from humanitarian thought. But regardless of this, I still think its better than nothing at all.
Or maybe this is the "nothing at all". Profit working for profit's sake.
You claim that there are other ways to effectivelly help the poor than government welfare and they would be sufficient. If it was true, why we dont see them in action? Why we still need welfare? Why was it even needed to be introduced, if such a help service (charity of that magnitude) can spontaneously arise from the free market, or what alternative do you propose?
Is it possible that the whole welfare scheme was never introduced for humanitarian efforts? Could it be a means of control and a scheme to make the people reliant on an oligarch (including those not on welfare)? ]
As far as an alternative. What happened to personal responsibility? What happened to a focus on self sufficiency as opposed to corporate/ government reliance? Maybe thinking for our selves and not buying the BS? Maybe we don't constantly give up our own rights because we are told it is necessary? Or empower an organization for the same reason?
Yes, lets face it, thats how it works - undeniable emergency services of uninsured are payed from taxes (stealing from others, not just the patients), and it is legal. Yes, I believe that it should be that way, because the only alternative is not providing medical emergencies for uninsured, and that is unacceptable to me.
Again that is not what I asked.
I asked if you thought their was legal justification for a hospital to steal or extort money from the other patients in order to pay for emergency services for one.
reply posted on 10-11-2010 @ 05:50 PM by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by Maslo
Because no such law exists that requires the public to fund anything other than immediate live saving medical care.
That doesnt include subsidizing rent, food, etc etc.
You neglected to address the unconstitutionality of such programs. Why?
Because no such law exists that requires the public to fund anything other than immediate live saving medical care.
That doesnt include subsidizing rent, food, etc etc.
You neglected to address the unconstitutionality of such programs. Why?
reply posted on 10-11-2010 @ 06:19 PM by Maslo
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
That does include food and water, since longer-term lack of food and water is life-threatening. In fact thats how minimal welfare (without disabilities) is computed here - the free market cost of minimal nutrition (calories) required to sustain adult individual per day. Its actualised every year. It does not include rent, and I doubt that welfare is so high in USA to pay for rent, since it is not even here, in "socialistic" central Europe.
Because no such law exists that requires the public to fund anything other than immediate live saving medical care. That doesnt include subsidizing rent, food, etc etc.
That does include food and water, since longer-term lack of food and water is life-threatening. In fact thats how minimal welfare (without disabilities) is computed here - the free market cost of minimal nutrition (calories) required to sustain adult individual per day. Its actualised every year. It does not include rent, and I doubt that welfare is so high in USA to pay for rent, since it is not even here, in "socialistic" central Europe.
edit on 10/11/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 10-11-2010 @ 06:26 PM by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by Maslo
I thought you were someone outside of the U.S., given your assumptions about how things work here. Good to see my hunch was correct.
Immediate live saving care does not include dinner and water. That isnt medical care. Even hypothetically if you were correct, subsidizing days, weeks, months, or years of food and water for people isnt considered life saving medical care, and as such should not be paid for with public funds. There are plenty of charitable organizations that provide meals.
Again, since you are outside of the U.S., you may be unfamiliar with the Constitutional issue at hand here, but if its a topic you would like to debate, I would suggest studying up on it.
I thought you were someone outside of the U.S., given your assumptions about how things work here. Good to see my hunch was correct.
Immediate live saving care does not include dinner and water. That isnt medical care. Even hypothetically if you were correct, subsidizing days, weeks, months, or years of food and water for people isnt considered life saving medical care, and as such should not be paid for with public funds. There are plenty of charitable organizations that provide meals.
Again, since you are outside of the U.S., you may be unfamiliar with the Constitutional issue at hand here, but if its a topic you would like to debate, I would suggest studying up on it.
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Was Jesus a Greek-Phoenician Philosopher? A hidden book, revealed…
Conspiracies in Religions: 1 minutes ago
Conspiracies in Religions: 1 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Code Name** Stellar Wind. Objective** Infiltrate All. Chances For Sucess** High.
General Conspiracies: 12 hours ago, 18 flags
General Conspiracies: 12 hours ago, 18 flags
"CIA are drug smugglers." - Federal Judge Bonner, head of DEA- You don't get better proof than th
General Conspiracies: 6 hours ago, 13 flags
General Conspiracies: 6 hours ago, 13 flags
As Commandos Raid Tampa, US State Dept Demands Power to Declare War?
New World Order: 13 hours ago, 12 flags
New World Order: 13 hours ago, 12 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Porn stars explain how they ended up with Bill Clinton in pictures Hillary eat your hear out!! W/pic
Politicians & People: 12 hours ago, 44 replies
Politicians & People: 12 hours ago, 44 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.254 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.254 seconds
