The Free markets simply CANNOT manage affordable healthcare.

How can that be? We've had obamacare for close to 7 years and the Democrats/Socialist say were covered, am I wrong?

 

Way to change the quoting. Mucking up the thread and conversation on purpose?
OK, names are irrelevant. Only because you know there are no creators for real. Only what you want to believe.
How about the exact words from all these Creators that grant us all these rights you claim all these Creator's have granted.

 

That is an affirmative.

 

You betcher sweet bippy it does.

The problem being...?

 

I think this has been pointed out to you before. Government did little except fund engineering projects done by private enterprise. It wasn't government that took us to the moon. It was companies like McConnell Aircraft that built the Mercury and Gemini space capsules that did it. North American Aviation built the Apollo spacecraft that actually went to the moon and back.

I'm guessing you simply aren't old enough to even have a faint recollection of the space program.

Even after it has been explained to you over and over and over again you are unable to discern the difference between a group of individuals acting jointly based on the enlightened self-interest of each individual as opposed to a collective. They are *not* the same.

The US is not now and never has been a collective. Since our nation's creation there have always been too many competing interests for the nation to ever be considered a collective. There were the Federalists and the anti-Federalists at the very start of this nation. Hell, there were even the Tories and the Rebels! And it's no different today. Rural vs urban, conservatives vs Marxists, high tax states vs low tax states, and on and on and on.

Did you *bother* to go look up the etymology of the word men? It's obvious that you didn't. Even if you had you still don't understand the difference between natural, Creator given rights and legal standing under the law.

You really *do* need to read Locke's "2nd Treatise on Government" for comprehension!

 

No, it isn't.

I keep telling you to go read Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government. Hell, read his first Treatise as well!

 

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Again, if you want to know the words of the Creator then *you* need to go do the research. I'm not here to play into your argumentative fallacy of Burden of Proof.

Go read Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government especially.

If you want to know the words of the Native American Creator I would suggest finding a Native American to talk to. Much of their beliefs are not written down. They are big on oral traditions.

 

People look at healthcare the wrong way, that is the problem.

 

His statement:

"The *issue* is our rights. And how the government is run has absolutely nothing to do with our rights.

The Bill of Rights *protects* our rights from encroachment by government. It doesn't give us our rights. Nor do laws give us our rights."

rights
(raɪts)
pl n
1. those things that one is morally or legally entitled to do or have.




My contention:

Above-stated is an absurd argument that CANNOT be semantically justified.

 

Can you cite any part of the Constitution, or federal law, that grants the right to free speech?

 

So you're claiming the gov't just handed those space companies blank checks with no oversight? Yes, it was pvt industry, with taxpayer money doing the work.
Nothing wrong with that, that is now basically how the ACA is setup. The education system.


I'll read what you ask when you tell us all what this creator, now you may even say creator's as I originally said, is.
Give us the words that grant us the right's from these creator's.
Until you can prove there is a creator or creator's, there is no reason for me to read any further. The creator's, IMO, do NOT exist. And therefore those words have no meaning. Actually, those words do NOT exist.

 

Yes it is.
If not, at least give the words from these creator's granting us the rights you want to claim.

 

Then by all means, give us the words that the creator's granted us. Without those words, we have nothing but air.

You are claiming we have rights the some creator's. I know of NO words from any creator, and I've researched to find them. They don't exist.

I don't care what the words of the Native American creator are. But that means there is more than 1 creator and therefore the use of the word THEIR. And not the use of the word THE.

 

Someone did that earlier. In the 1st 10 Amendments.

 

Nothing in the first 10 amendment grants the right to free speech.
Noting in federal law, either.

You stated:
Laws and 'We the People', give us our right.
Can you cite any part of the Constitution, or federal law, that grants the right to free speech?

 

That is not interesting; but if you were to precisely articulate what is wrong with those three sentences, that might get interesting.

 

Those sentences contain inherent contradictions according to the universally accepted definition of "rights". . . . By no means a subtle or abstract argument.

I'm sorry if this wasn't interesting, but I couldn't find a cartoon to illustrate it.

 

The 1st amendment to the constitution? You tell us.
I know you're playing some game.
Laws based on the constitution is all that we have.

Unless you can cite something different. I'll play your little game. I think.

 

Hell, don't go running from a thread.
Show us words from any creator. Give us something.
Else, we'll assume you are making it all up.

 

Such as...?

No, I wouldn't call what you've presented either of those. I'd call it vacuous.

Better you should apologize for failing to find any words to articulate any specific objections.

 

Dairyair, yguy, and thinkitout, what he's saying is called natural rights, that human rights precede and predate any existing government, that to say that our rights originate from government is then to say that our rights are NOT inherent to us as human beings. Both the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Convention use similar terminology to express the same viewpoint, that by listing what some of our rights are are not CREATING rights but AFFIRMING them. This is why the 9th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Note carefully that it says, "enumerate," not "create," "grant," or "invent". And if the Bill of Rights was in fact creating rights, the 9th Amendment would be a nullity, since there would be no other rights except those previously listed. For example, the rights to life, liberty, and property are nowhere to be found in the Bill of Rights, but we have all of them. Why do we have them if rights are only given by government? They certainly aren't granted by any other laws. All the other laws tell us what we can't do or must do, none of them tell us what we're allowed to do or what rights we're "granted". What you're referring to is positive law, which 99% of the populace believes in, but which in my mind can only lead to tyranny, for if our rights are not inherent to us as human beings, then government can take them away simply by changing the law, and you really have no right to gripe about it since you don't think we have any inherent rights at all.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

These "inherent rights" were based on moral beliefs of the founding fathers, and they may be secured (or guaranteed) by government or denied through legislation, whereby they cease to be rights. . . . Inherent rights and lawful rights are not necessarily the same, but both are defined as rights.

You can't eat dinner with a fork in the road, but semantics doesn't give you license to arbitrarily reject any definition not supporting a desired interpretation.

His statement:

"The *issue* is our rights. And how the government is run has absolutely nothing to do with our rights.

The Bill of Rights *protects* our rights from encroachment by government. It doesn't give us our rights. Nor do laws give us our rights."

rights
(raɪts)
pl n
1. those things that one is morally or legally entitled to do or have.

Judging by the differences of opinion in this forum, "inherent rights" are very subjective.

 

See post #297

 

Doctors would be competitive in a free market especially for standard health care. Catastrophic health care insurance would cover everything else.

 

They cannot be inherent rights if they can be denied by government. As for the differences of opinion, I did note that 99% of people believe in positive law these days rather than natural law. The founding fathers believed fervently in natural law. I do as well. The definition you have given tries to cover both sides.

p.s. It's worth noting that under a positive law system, the American Revolution would have been entirely unjustified. It could only be justified under a natural law system, that the English government was violating the inherent rights of the colonists and that gave the colonists the right to throw off English rule and establish a new American government and country. If the colonists did not have inherent rights but only those granted by the English government, there would be no moral or ethical justification for rebellion.