Ron Paul: ‘Entitlements are not rights’

Yes, spot on being a libertarian -A.k.a. a Republican that smokes weed- typical libertarian rhetoric, by those who pray at the altar of their sociopathic God Ayn Rand, I despise that greed is good little weasel, your bullshit doesn't fool my ass, nor anyone else with two functioning brain cells in their head, "personal liberty" being a code word for absolute greed, we see through your bullshit, libertarianism is truly, a disgusting philosophy, this man sickens me.

Also, where was "Dr." Paul a practicing doctor? Auschwitz? Buchenwald? he certainly looks old enough, and it would certainly explain his libertarian philosophy towards other human beings.

Nice post KB {;-)

You're just playing with words. Facts don't seem to be of interest to you at all.

There is no such thing as an innate right. No matter what is written on which piece of paper, our rights are decided, they are not granted by the universe. If you disagree then please explain how these rights are eternal and where do they come from? Jesus? Zeus? Santa, perhaps? If rights are innate, then do ants have rights? How about pond scum? Viruses? When we take antibiotics are we violating a virus's right to life? If no, then why not? Free cash? Yeah it's the poor people who get free cash and not the banks, or the corporations who reap the profits of the labor sowed by their underpaid employees.

No word games. Just think about what entitlements mean.

Why not discuss instead of name-calling? Do you think that people can officially have an "entitlement" to something, and then the government simply refuses to provide it? What 'entitlements" are there, for example?

Social security is an obvious one. Well, tell me how the government can simply refuse to pay it out. Don't start the inane speculation that if the economy tanks, they won't be able to, blah, blah, blah. Just tell me whether now it is the LAW that it gets paid or not.

You have no idea what you write; you just post what "feels good."

By you LEFTISTS claiming that there are no Natural Rights, you must therefore conclude that there are no enduring principles; it would mean that morality, justice and even truth are not possible, but are things that simply change with the times. For LEFT-WINGERS, concepts such as Rule of Law, the sanctity of private property, consent of the governed, and the limitation of government can have no eternal qualities, and the concept of “Natural Rights” – the idea that our human rights come from our very being and are inalienable – is not an permanent truth because, according to you LIBERAL, there are no permanent truths but only evolving ones. For you people, our rights and our freedoms are to be dictated by the times in which we live and to be decided by experts in the government.

While true that our rights are not eternal, it is false to assume that means I do not value the concept of rights at all. All I said where our rights are decided, as they are. Characterizing this as if liberals would just accept just any old crap decided for us by "government experts" is dishonest.

Rights are decided subjectively. Why is it wrong to enslave someone? Because that idea was generated by the big bang? No, it's because we as human beings subjectively feel that it is wrong to enslave someone. Just because most people share this feeling doesn't mean it's objectively true. It's only true when we factor in morality and sense of decency (which of course we should do).

Explain how rights just come from our very being. I asked you to demonstrate how rights are eternal and you failed to do so. Explain how our rights objectively exist eternally.

Our rights ARE eternal. If a government secures them, that is ideal. But no government secures them perfectly; it is an ongoing process. But the government does not CREATE rights; it creates laws to SECURE our inherent human rights.

The premise of the Liberals, started from the Progressive era, is briefly as follows, and one of the notorious Progressives, President Woodrow Wilson, stated it clearly: Wilson explained that the foundation of the Constitution - mainly the rationale of Natural Rights - was no longer appropriate and that an administrative state was necessary in the modern age. It was claimed that we have outgrown that historical period in which we worried about King and Church. Progressives believed that we have our rights and no longer have to live in fear of losing them as the Founders did. Wilson and his cronies concurred that this is no longer of any concern, and that we have evolved and must deal with new forces.

John Dewey, a Progressive philosopher and educator of that era, went so far as to claim that the Founders were actually rather primitive and even amoral because they only emphasized the Natural Duties that emanated from the concept of Natural Rights. The Founders believed that individuals are free to pursue their own concerns and government should respect this, but for Dewey, these “negative rights” – freedom from government by restraining its powers – is empty; it does not encourage active government which should help to actualize people’s spiritual potential. The government, Dewey insisted, should expand to distribute resources so these “potentials” could be realized, and new rights should be created. In addition, according to this view, society and the administration of the nation have grown very complex, so we need experts to administer it. Progressives popularized the idea that appointed “experts” should run the administrative agencies

Explain how our rights are eternal. You say that it is, but you do not back it up.

There are some simple truths, and metaphysics are not needed. Postulates from which other rights eminate. Natural Rights is one, and this is valid no matter whether the person is a Christian, a Jew, an agnostic or an atheist. The Founders knew this and saw it in the nature of man, the striving to be free and in control of one's own life in society.

Name-calling? I referred to you as "you". Would Mishima prefer something different?

I don't disagree with much of what you said. Where you go with it is another matter. The fact is that there are over 160 comments to this article. Several of the lengthier ones I have offered. We've already covered all this stuff. You bring nothing to the discussion except, apparently, a desire to rant about something.

As for your last sentence: We're done here. That's all you got?

OK, start from a simple premise: All men are created equal. That is one essential basis for understanding Natural Rights. Without that, the edifice crumbles. This postulate does not support the GOVERNMENT providing "entitlements" or other such garbage, but that no one person is of any more value than another.

This came, in part, from our Juedo-Christian heritage which stresses that man is created in the image of God, therefore all are equal in His eyes.

However, even though I am a nonbeliever, I accept - unlike American Left-wingers - the sources of our values and the origins of our political system.

One does not have to be a "believer" to accept equality of all humans; some of the Founders were Deists and such, and they accepted this premise.

And THAT is eternal, pal!

Well no. Not okay. It's just another cute mashup that is light years away from the topic of this post. You want to bash Obama? I'm ok with that. Done plenty myself.
Look, Mishima, I don't mean to antagonize you. You have a good mind. Just relax and let it flow a little. Most times it's better to advance the discussion rather than constantly trying to win it.
Now I don't speak for noxidereus. He hardly needs my help. But he is asking precisely the right question repeatedly and you do not answer. You've got lots of words and "stuff" but no answer; as if to simply answer the question on someone else's terms is unbearable to the ego.

I told you what entitlements mean and entail. You said I played word games. If you cannot understand the concepts, that is unfortunate.

I spoke to the other poster.

I believe that all humans are equally human and should be treated equally, but that is a subjective opinion. There is nothing eternal about it. People in the KKK don't believe that. Also, social aid is not garbage. There is no such thing as God, and even he existed you can't argue he values everyone equally or the bible wouldn't endorse slavery as it does. The source of our values are our emotions, not some religious background.

What you have described is a human interpretation of what our rights should be. You have not described anything eternal. You have still failed to do so. It is impossible for you to demonstrate that it is objectively true that all men are created equal. You have demonstrated that some people subjectively believe this. There is nothing at all eternal about that. Our rights are subjective, not objective.

Bingo! :)

Outside of practical natural science, it is impossible to demonstrate much of anything "objectively" as you insist.

Love? Honor? Duty? Hate? Greed?

Come up with universal OBJECTIVE definitions of those on which everyone will agree. But everyone will agree that 2+2=4 and basic concepts of physics. (I know, I know, those change, too, but let's be reasonable: People make cars and buildings based on standard criteria.)

Human equality is a postulate on which one begins. A starting point, an axiom. I doubt that there are many ways to refute that and still come out a reasonable person in a civilized society. And because the KKK does not accept that, it does not negate it; look at how that organiation is viewed by most of the WORLD.

And I did not say "treated" equally, now, did I? We do not treat children equally, and a 5-year old does not have the rights - by LAW - that I do. But under law, he is equal as a human being; therein lies the equality.

I am not going to debate God, because I do not believe in God. But many of our values came from the JuedoChristian principle of His creation. Of course, God is not necessary to believe in equality, but that is our primary source. I like the Hindu idea: The parents of a child have a responsibility to take care of the body; they do not possess the soul which the body simply carries. It is independent.

These values were first put into writing in the document of the greatest country in the history of our planet.

We are all equal by nature, and laws are something created by man. Government hopefully secures and recognizes our equality, but it is an ongoing process.

And entitlements and "rights" given by lawmakers has absolutely nothing to do with it. Entitlements are a perversion.

We are not all equal by nature. Each of us is different. The concept of human equality is a subjective human value. It does not come from anywhere but our own brains. Not all of us share the same concept of human equality, and there is no high authority in the universe to say that one person's interpretation is false while another's is true. That absolutely means that our rights are not eternal.

In "the greatest country in the history of our planet" (LOL), you can be indefinitely detained without due process. Jews in Nazi Germany didn't have so many rights, now did they? Our rights are absolutely dependent upon bodies of authority. What does it mean that one has the right to free speech? It means (simplified) that it's not against the law to say what you want. Obviously that right isn't protected as much as it should be, and in practical application, we don't really have this right. Should we, yes, I say, but no matter how many people agree with me, it is still a subjective opinion and there is nothing eternal about it. Nothing.

You are still describing a subjective human interpretation of what our rights should be. Therefore we may finally conclude that rights are not eternal, but a matter of human interpretation. Nature does not recognize that humans have any value. Only humans do.

Stated with absolute clarity, I happen to believe, that the available evidence supports exactly that what you are saying is correct, great post nox. +^

Precisely! Thank you! And from that thought all else springs.

The government can't provide anything Mishima. They don't have anything. Every dime in government coffers is the property of the public. You tell me where the United States government is getting the money that's in the Social Security Fund? Tell me where the government is getting the money that's in Medicare? There is no such thing as government cash. It's the public's cash. How is the United States government making the money they control? What product are they selling? What services are they getting their revenue from? It's not the governments money and never has been. Explain to me why the public isn't entitled to it's own money and I'll forward that explanation to your bank. Do you know what it's called when the money, military, buildings or anything else is considered the property of the government? Communism.

You can mock and disparage America all you want; you are free to do so, but it shows a vindictive nature, a person bereft of historical understanding, and one who is incapable of appreciating his own bounties and liberties.

Yes, people may look at others as superior and inferior, but they are simply wrong. Everyone is equal, of course. You can cling to your relativism - which is self-contradictory if you ever make an effort to really think about it - but it does not change the eternal truth that we are all equal.

"Our rights are absolutely dependent upon bodies of authority."

That is an interpretation of the far Left and invalid. The EXERCISE of our rights can be repressed by those in power, and they may not SECURE them, but our rights are always with us, of course. Ask the Syrians who are dying right now as you type, pal; I suspect that they believe that their rights as human beings have not been "secured" and are willing to die for that belief.

You are right. If I could make a law - as the cliche goes - I would MAKE every single freakin' politician reword a specific expression when they refer to payments.

Instead of saying that "the government will pay for.....," it would change to: "The government will take money from the taxpayers to pay for....."

This is where vehement resistance comes from the government-lovers: When they are pressed to explain from where the money to pay for something - welfare, ObamaCare, college tuition - they recoil and start screaming about "compassion" or something of the sort. Or, they will say that the rich will pay for everything.

If we keep that element in mind, the Left-wingers will be soundly defeated in a generation.

"Our rights are absolutely dependent upon bodies of authority."

You declare this invalid. Then you spend the rest of the paragraph validating it.

The Social Security Act was enacted in 1935. There are people about to reach retirement, who have been paying into this insurance fund, with their own hard earned money, their entire lives. They will soon become ENTITLED UNDER THE LAW to collect on this insurance. I am willing to bet a shiny new dime, that if you are not already collecting Social Security, on the first day of your eligibility, you will have the papers filled out and sent away by noon. There is also no doubt in my mind, if you are not already on Medicare, you will be more than happy to use it when the time comes. Just like the hypocritical Tea Party members, who are all for entitlements that come their way. 83% appose any cuts to Social Security. 73% appose any cuts to Medicare prescription drug coverage (that's the coverage George W. Bush came up with, and made no plans on how to pay for it). 79% appose cuts to Medicare reimbursement to physicians and hospitals. It turns out the right likes these so called entitlement programs just fine when they are the beneficiaries. Just don't do anything for anybody else. They are just fine with the tax payer subsidizing their income and well being through Social Security. You see, this gives them time to organize protests against tax payer subsidizing. HYPOCRITES. They also hate paying taxes. They don't mind it when others pay taxes though. Almost 60% were in favor of raising taxes on those outside their income bracket. The right wing idea of small government is one where I get mine, and most others don't get much at all. The Social Security System has been in operation for almost 80 years. It worked fine 40 years ago. What changed? The Republicans have been purposely mismanaging it for the last 30 years in the hopes of forcing it into privatization. That's what changed. There is no doubt in my mind, that when it comes time for you to benefit from these programs, you'll be standing in line with your hand out just like the rest of the hypocritical right. That is, if you are not already.

You couldn't be farther off the mark.

First of all, the government MANDATED (i.e., confiscated/seized) a portion of the citizens' salaries from the day they started working, so it is THEIR money.

Next, on a more personal note: I did NOT pay into social security for well over half of my working life. Nothing illegal, of course, but I simply did not have to pay into it. I am soooo glad I did not all of those years. I was able to invest it to secure a FAR better retirement in the future, of course. Private investments pay superior dividends; there is no comparison.

Medicare? I could care less. I will apply for it because my private insurance company will demand it, of course. But I can use my private insurance if I am someplace where Medicare cannot be used.

The Tea Party PATRIOTS understandably want to collect social security because they were FORCED to pay into it. What do you expect?

Don't you now see why entitlements should be phased out - COMPLETELY? They divide people as I wrote before. The society gets divided into each "entitled" group - no matter what the entitlement - being pitted against one another instead of looking out for the country as a whole.

True Conservatives would have ObambiCare repealed completely, and phase out social security and medicare/medicade. (People could VOLUNTARILY take the government retirement option if they are of the inane and dependent mindset, wanting a mommy throughout their life coddling them.) Virtually every department - OHSA, Education, Energy, etc., would also be phased out - COMPLETELY. The Supreme Court "privacy" garbage would be overturned and let the states decide. Lower income taxes for everyone, and capital gains maybe at 5%, possibly ZERO.

But simple question, hoping for a clear and reasoned response: If for the younger people, there was a private OPTION for social security, would you oppose it? If yes, why?

I don't have to be for or against it. I live in Canada were we have Universal Health care, with a surplus. I live in Canada were we have the Social Insurance System, with a surplus. Our systems are so well run, they don't even come up in conversation. They don't cause divisions of any kind here. We are one big happy family. It's not that these insurance systems can't work properly. They can't work properly when someone has been sabotaging them for 30 years. Oh, and by the way, we also have a separate plan called The Canada Pension Plan with, you guessed it, a surplus. A surplus of almost 150 billion dollars. And it is run in such a way as to always have a surplus. Canada is the only member of the G-7 to show surpluses across the board in the last ten years. We have had a Conservative federal leader in Stephen Harper since 2006. That's not so lefty.

My Canadian friends are very thankful to be able to come to the US to get whatever medical treatments they can't get in a timely fashion under their own system.

And how much do they pay out of pocket for that convenience. I do not ever hear Canadians complain about our health care system. That's not entirely true. Here's an example of a typical Canadian complaint. "Do you know it took me three hours to see a doctor when I got hurt last week". There are people dead and dying on the United States as a direct result of your health care system. And I can't get over how many Americans seem to know Canadians who go to the States for health care. I have yet to meet one, and I have lived here my whole life.

I lived in NS for a while and made many friends. I am still in touch with some of them. They and their counterparts from NB routinely go to the States for med treatment. What they pay I don't know. The point is that they are happy with their current system in part because they have the flexibility to access the US system when they deem it necessary.

I did found out today that most of the cases of Canadians going to the U.S. for health care services are for elective procedures. I also find out our Universal Health Care will pay for some if not all of the cost of these procedures. I am a member of the health sciences, but I work in a support capacity, helping with the ongoing health care and activities of daily living for the elderly. Asking the people I work with about this about this was very enlightening.

Sorry to butt in on you, jim. But if I may, what are elective procedures? I understand the term generically, of course. Are these cases where we (USA) might have specialists or special equipment?

An elective procedure is a procedure that is not of immediate concern. It is a procedure for something that is not considered life threatening. We in Canada have the same quality of doctors and equipment that is available in the United States. One of the problems we have here, is Americans using phony Canadian health cards to get free health care at our expense. A little while back Ontario had to issue new photo I.D. OHIP health cards (O.H.I.P. the Ontario Health Insurance Plan) because so many people from Michigan had them.

Thanks.
Fascinating since back when we were arguing ObamaCare the propaganda was that your "socialized" system sucks.

No kidding. Not only does it work for us, It works for Americans who want to cheat our system. I would be willing to bet that there are more Americans coming to Canada for health care on the sly, than there are Canadians going to the States for health care legitimately. And let's face it. If you have a profit driven health care system, how honest are politicians and insurance companies going to be about the non-profit system next door. One of the most ridiculous things they were saying was "Do you really want someone to come between you and your doctor. Do you really want some government bureaucrat making your health care decisions". Well the simple fact of it is, my doctor could order an antler transplant for me, and my government would not know about it till they got the bill. The only place someone comes between patient and doctor is in the United States under the system you already have. They are called HMO's. How did they manage to get Americans to be afraid of our system, by lying to them about it being like yours?

Good for you if you can actually do that. I find it very, very interesting, however, that many Canadians I meet in Florida universally complalin about their health care system - the quality and the waiting.

I suspect that unless one has experienced the superiority of the American system, one can be satisfied with what one has. That is, if one does not know any better, how can one complain?

Yes, I found that in Florida. Every Canadian whom I have met there who chose, or had to have, American healthcare said it is superior to theirs.

I suspect that unless someone has experienced both, one would be satisfied with what one has. I am sure canadian health care is adequate, of course.

When I lived in Europe on the local economy, the health care was "free." However, I actually went on a black market to get treatment several times.

I live in Japan. If there is something serious, I would get on a place to America. No question. Rich Arabs with plenty of cash, when they need serious operations and treatment for things like cancer and heart problems, come to the United States in most cases.

Typical Conservative bullshit. My Grandmother married a man from Florida and lived there with him, and they both came back to Canada for their health care.

Just telling you what I saw and experienced. America has the best health care in the world, and I have had - and seen - treatment in Europe and Japan.

The fact is when my Grandmothers husband , a man named Ed Lafferty from a small town called Keystone Heights in Florida, needed extended health care, they moved to Canada.

Yes, in Canada, one can be a sponge and get the "free" stuff.

You have been duped into believing that the GOVERNMENT actually pays for thing. Go get the "free" stuff. Funny.

It's not free. The government does not pay for anything. The government doesn't have anything. We pay for it by contributing into our health insurance plans. We have already had this conversation. One day your telling me it is the governments money, and the next day your telling me we have been duped into believing it's the governments money. You will just say anything to try and argue your point. Lets look at some World Health Organization statistics. Overall health care by country. Canada 30th. United States 37th. Preventable deaths. Canada 4th. United States 14th. Healthy life expectancy. Canada 12th. United States 24th. Health performance rank. Canada 35th. United States 72nd. Health expenditure per G.D.P. Canada 18th. United States 2nd. Infant mortality rate.Canada 24th. United States 34th. Obesity. Canada 42nd. United States 18th. End of life quality Canada 5th. United States 6th. The only thing in health care that you do better than us is not spend money on health care. France is number one in health care, and they have a Universal Health Care system. In fact yours is the only country in the developed world that doesn't.

Well, reality is different. I was in an airport this summer and noticed one of the major magazines - Time or US News or Newsweek - and it had world healthcare rankings.

Japan was #1. I actually laughed out loud, right in the bookstore, because I had traveled to America for spinal surgery; I traveled all that way to get away from Japanese medicine and get to the best in the entire world.

I do find those rating scale to be full of fecal matter. When one's real health is concerned, then the rubber hits the road.

I have also seen a multitude of other data comparing cancer testing, survival rates, treatments, and America outshines Canada by far. No comparison. None at all. And it was the same with heart problems. America surpasses Canada.

The reason some of those absurd "statistics" give lower points for America is very simple: There are many irresponsible people who do not pay their insurance and whine and moan.

Yes, France is good in health care, but would you be willing to give up 1/5 of your GROSS income from the day you begin working? Think about it; not AGI but GROSS INCOME. Imagine a professional couple, not rich, but who averaged say $120,000/year over their 40 year working career (combined). They would have paid almost ONE MILLION DOLLARS! And maybe they die before ever getting treatments.

Follow the money: Look where the rich Saudis and such go. Most go to the greatest country in the world - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Get real, pal. LOL

No mishima, It's not different. You just adjust things to fit your argument. Just like telling me one day it is the governments money when it suits your argument, then telling me the next day that it's not the governments money when it suits your argument. How do you explain that one? And I have to correct myself. Coming in second in health care expenditures doesn't mean you pay less for health care. It means only the Marshal Islands pays more than you. You pay 15.2 percent of your G.D.P. France pays 9.6 percent. Canada pays 9.8.

You need to understand sarcasm, or I need to actually indicate when I am using sarcasm when replying to concrete thinkers. (Sarcasm there.)

No Conservative or person who otherwise has a cursory knowledge of economics thinks that the government pays for anything, but it seems that the Left has been able to convince some people that it actually does. Europeans - even well educated ones - actually seem to believe the GOVERNMENT pays for stuff. The "free" stuff. (Sarcasm there.)

The is no "government money." There is only the people's money that is SEIZED and USED by the government. I simply assumed that you would know that, but I was mistaken.

The bottom line is that health care has to be paid by the people. It is expensive in America, primarily because it is SUPERIOR. America's health care is the BEST IN THE WORLD, and people with money - like the Saudis - come to America for the SUPERIOR health care. Good "stuff" costs $$$.

But that is not all, of course. Lawsuits raise prices because doctors feel obliged to give unnecessary tests. Then there is Medicare that drove up prices 14% per year from the first year it started. Then there are the multitudinous regulations that should be scrapped. And people cannot buy insurance wherever they please. And the irresponsible people who have to be served by law - the bums and irresponsible and malingerers.

But the % paid in GDP is not any kind of indicator that it is overpriced; please use logic and stop the Huffy Post - Rachel MadCow mindless talking points.

Rather than a lengthy explanation, I will ask a simple question that should suffice if one is willing to THINK IT THROUGH:

Which country spend a larger portion of the GDP on computers (or SUVs), America or Bangaladesh? Now does this mean that American computers (or SUVs) are unreasonably priced, that they are "overpriced?"

Answer that question, and you will be privy to what most Left-wingers are not. (Sarcasm again.)

It is more expensive in the States because it is horrifyingly miss managed. Just like virtually every single thing you do. We have none of your problems mishima. None. What part of none of your problems seems to continually escape you? Your house is on fire and your standing in the doorway saying how wonderful it is to be in there. What about our longer life span? What about our lower infant mortality rate? What about our higher health performance? What about our lower obesity rate? What about our lower health expenditures? You are choosing to deny these things solely so you can espouse American superiority. Something that has got your country in the jam your in in the first place. And people from around the world come here for health care too. Including the Saudis, and Americans from every single border state from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Sarcasm does not translate well on paper. And any concrete thinker would have known that ahead of time. And I am not being sarcastic. And no mishima. No one in a country that has Universal Health care is stupid enough to think the Government pays for our health care. You seem to be willfully forgetting that it was my argument that the government does not pay for anything. Now that it suits your argument. We are reminded every week who pays for it on the deduction slip of every pay check. It is becoming brutally obvious that you are making this stuff up as you go along.

Well, we all go by what our limited experience teaches us.

I recognize that there are problems, and you are deliberately distorting what I wrote once again. Obesity and life span are not results of medical care, of course; that is obvious. Do I have to inform you that they are due to overeating and violence, among other things, such as lack of exercise and drug use? You stretch and rely on the numbers that are cherry-picked.

I rely on common sense, and experience on four continents.

If a situation comes up when one's family or one's own self is at stake, that is when the "rubber hits the road" so to speak, and the Political Correctness and talking points end. In other words, the question to ask would be: Where would a rich guy from Saudi Arabia or Qatar go if he found out he had heart disease, iniment kidney failure or cancer?

To the greatest country in the world, of course, and NOT its northern neighbor.

And I can relate innumerable stories about people who, when they had the option, returned from abroad to get medical treatment in America, and not in a country with socialized medicine.

Another question to ask would be: How many Americans go to other countries to get treatment? Of course, there will be some experimental treatments in some countries, so plueeeeaaaase do not start with the usual Liberal tactic of presenting extremely rare cases as commonplace. And do you know about "medical tourism" these days? That PROVES - beyond doubt - that the free market provides better care than the criminally overregulated market.

Look into it, and look at the results. These places in Bangkok, for example, provide some of the best medical care in the entire world. And it is because they operate under possibly the least regulated and freest market in medicine. IT PROVES FREE MARKET CAPITALISM BENEFITS MEDICINE!! NO DOUBT!!

Most people get sarcasm quite well. In the future, I will put the word sarcasm in parenthesis in exchanges to you, however, or try to circumscribe my use of it. Thank you for letting me know.

My cousin married a man from Italy who came to America as an adult. He is quite bright and built up a private business from the ground and became successful.

Once, he was making decisions about health care and lamented that it is not "free" in America as it is in Italy.

I then remarked "it is not free there."

"yes it is," he replied, understandably looking at me as someone who lives in his own country and does not know about his (Italy).

I insisted, "no, it is not free."

He said, "yes it is." Back and forth a couple of times.

He said, "You don't have to pay for it!"

I replied, "Oh, the doctors work for free."

"No, they get paid."

"But who pays them?"

"The government."

"But where does the government get the money to pay them?"

Silence......

Of course, the people know, but my point is this: Under socialized medicine, that mindset starts, the mindset that it is free. Right here in Japan, after the age of about 70, it becomes "free" in that they do not have to pay anything. Under 70, they pay 20%. So, what happens? The local hospital is so filled with these leeches, that the nurses actually joke that the hospital has become a social club, and it is true.

When I lived in Europe, there were scams under socialized "free" medical care. I was eligibile because I had a work visa (and I now have European citizenship), and was told by my European counterparts that I would be a FOOL not to take advantage of the latest SOCIALIST SCAM: Tell the doctor that I have headaches or backaches or the like, and ask to go to a spa for a week. Hey, get a "free" spa vacation, ALL PAID FOR BY THE "GOVERNMENT."

Welcome to SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!!

Okay Mishima. I give up. I will start a grass roots effort to change the Canadian system to be more like the American system. And with any luck, in a few years, we'll be just as broke, foreclosed, out of work, and at each others throats as you are. I just don't think I'll have much luck convincing my countrymen to do it. Come to think of it. Not one country on the planet has emulated your model, have they? With the exception of maybe Mexico. Yours is the only country in the western world that doesn't have Universal health care. Why do you suppose that is? Because only America could possibly get it right? Or only America has gotten it wrong? And how many of the emerging States are setting up congresses, senates and a presidents office just like yours? None. That's how many. Your in a car that's going over a cliff and all your worried about is making sure everybody understands you couldn't possibly get it wrong because your America.

Nothing to emulate, of course. You have distorted once again. I could use stronger words, of course.

Why do you change what was written? We do not have a "system" in an overall sense. We have the BEST MEDICAL CARE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD that has been usurped and messed up by too many regulations, Medicare, and lawsuits.

The international clinic in Thailand is the model to which all countries should aspire, of course: Basically regulation and lawsuit-free. Take a look.

I posted what a person in france, for example, could expect to pay over a lifetime of being fleeced by the government. If a person had a medical savings account, he or she could go to places like that clinic and not only get the best medical treatment, but could save HUGE amounts of money.

GOVERNMENT "medical care" cannot compete with the free market. It hasn't the chance of the proverbial "snowball in hell."

I give up. Your right.

Thanks jim. We're really good about bringing the bullshit. Thanks for bringing the facts.

I agree! Very well said. I am so sick to death of hearing entitlement,entitlement,entitlement!
Give me a break it is our money!

Anything the government has belongs to the people. Right down to the gavel in John Boehner's hand.

LOL. True. But I suspect if we honestly investigated under GAP regarding embezzlement we wouldn't have enough jails to hold them all.

Regarding stock market in Dow/Bhopal thread:
Within reason, I don't think the big players care right now. Dumb money jumps around. Smart money knows what its doing.
Big players are doing just fine despite diminished markets: minimal labor force, price increases and smaller guys dropping out. They're fundamentally trying to destroy govt as we've known it, and Obama, by withholding jobs while manipulating finance. It's high-stakes poker and there going all in. I think that's why this GOP primary is so over the top. This ain't just for POTUS, it's for Senior VP of Masters of the Universe.
These guys are expert at running companies on bare bones. They can't hold out forever though. If Obama wins they're gonna have to loosen up a bit, get back to business, and get along with Obama.
Interesting was Romney's comment to Town Haller this week; something like, "Elect me, you get job. Elect Obama, no job." I think Big Money intends to bust open the economy if GOP wins. No need for true economic demand. They've got to rebuild and they've got the cash and financing. Don't need true market demand. Just fake it for show.

I agree with all of that. But my point was about the average investor themselves. When it looked like Dow was going to do the right thing by the people of Bhopal, the investors put a run on Dow stock. Within hours in fact. This tells me that doing the right thing is an impossibility for the stock market. The more evil they are, the more money their investors make.

Sure. Remember: they're obligated by law to only care about their shareholders. "Evil" is defined only as that which diminishes profitablility below acceptable levels. There is no morality except as it might impact profitability through public perception. But as we've seen, even in the most heinous circumstances the public is pissed for about five minutes then it's back to biz as usual. I will not, for example, walk into Wal-Mart or (lately) Lowes. My friends think I'm freaking crazy to think it even matters. :)
Yes, Dow was hammered by the Yes Men. It was beautiful. My guess is that some smart money moved very fast at little loss and the rest was dumb money bailing and knocking the share price down. Major money rode it out.
To that evil list you can add Enron (obviously) and Exxon (the shareholder uprising of 2006... tried to get mgmt to be be less evil.... mgmt politely told them to shove it.)
I'm not in the market. I'm dumb money and I know it. Guys like me have to either just park it somewhere long-term or stay up 24 hours a day trying to avoid a disaster that may start and be over in a few hours. Major money drives it. Smart money knows the turf and knows how to work it. Dumb money just takes a whipping. :)

Amen brother.

Yep. And a footnote I forgot about Dow....
I do think the stock impact was made much worse by the shock of the Yes Men event that came outta nowhere. Had Dow chosen to "not be evil" and paid the piper with proper prep and PR it likely would have been far less devastating.

Could be. But that's all above my pay grade. Ha Ha.

Intelligent and concise, very good post, voted way up!! thanks Jim.

Your welcome.

Yeah. I had asked the question yesterday. Forget your petty likes and dislikes and take a step back to look at the whole lot, "Is this the best we can do?"

I'm afraid that agreeing with Paul about rights/entitlements is a moot point. That is a settled issue.
As to inherent rights. Agreed. We have none. Indeed, there were some 100,000 Iraqis for whom even the right to life we denied. For oil.
The "right to the earnings of others" is a gross misrepresentation of reality. To pursue that position ultimately leads to the conclusion that government is not empowered to do anything at all. But there are agreements, laws and contracts.

good god you do realize you currently live in a country that has some 35 miliion homeless and does not take care of them and has a democratic prez? WTF? deaf dumb and blind all of you republican/democrat monopoly servers.

L. O. L! You are funny.

Not wanting to live in a country that doesn't take care of the poor doesn't mean I currently live in one that does.

Silly.

Also I've been on here a long time. Anyone who notices my comments now and then knows I fucking hate both parties with a passion. Please spew your foul ignorance to someone who deserves it.

Greed is built in our nature, ever thought of that? You will always have rich and poor, live with it. No system is perfect. But I'd rather have a free market system, then an socialistic system. Why? Because competition makes prices cheaper and is an incentive for innovation. Not all rich people benefit from hand-outs. Some of them do by their hard work and ingenuity. Like Bill Gates for example.The intention to provide healthcare for everybody is good, but when you do that by government, you get the opposite. You get corporations who benefit, and prices go up.

If we would apply the same principles of free markets to healthcare, we would have cheap and good service. The cellphones have improved and got cheaper substantially, not by government planning, but by free market principles.

Minimum wages are noble in intent, but also have the opposite result: unskilled people don't get employed, because companies don't/can't pay those prices, so you have more unemployment.

I am not an advocate of free market principles as the solution to everything. When free market principles are applied to health insurance for example, greed is definitely a bad thing, because health insurance companies profit by not paying for healthcare so that's what they try to do (not pay for healthcare of the sick). Some things should be left to government, and just like you would probably say that America doesn't really follow free market principles, I say our government is not currently a function of the people. My assertion that some things (like healthcare for example) should be left to the government, I don't mean a big-brother government like the one we currently have, but one that is really of, for, and by the people. I would rather live in a socialistic society. To each his own. Companies screw their employees by not paying them what their work is actually worth, so yes we do need a minimum wage in my opinion. I am not a Libertarian and I strongly disagree with their free market idealism. Social freedom, they've got right, but when it comes to the economy I could not disagree with them more.

And like it or not Bill Gates is as filthy rich as he is because of the continued labor of others to make him that rich. He couldn't do it all himself.

Government will never be a function of the people, that's the problem. That's why you have to contain it, people are greedy by design, so if you have one principled man like Ron Paul, that's an anomaly, and that's why he has that support.

You cannot rely on anomalies to run your government, that's why you should prevent corruption at its routs, by limiting the power of the government.

Corporations indeed want to pay less to employers, but it's not only for profit, it also to keep the price of their products as low as possible, and that benefits the consumer.

The best solution for higher wages is competition for labor, which is the result of a good economy. When companies have to fight to find the right employers, they will increase their paychecks, and improve working conditions. The answer is not minimum wages, that increases unemployment, because corp. can't afford paying these wages to unskilled laborers. They will simply not hire the most unskilled people, because they are too expensive.

Employees of corporations are consumers too. Paying people a lower wage does not help the customer because employees are customers. If corporations wanted to lower their prices, how about the executives take smaller salary/bonuses? There is no justification for the fact that CEOs can make 400-500 times what the average person makes. That's insanely ridiculous.

Corporations pay their employees too little because the greedy men who run them want to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense. That's why so many of my fellow computer programmer colleagues lost their jobs to India. So much for competition for labor. You can't compete with the labor force of a different country with a cheaper cost of living. You get to choose to accept lower pay or like a gimp or, you know, you can't feed your kids.

I reject completely your argument that the answer isn't minimum wage. A huge labor force of underpaid slaves is not better than having a law that prevents this. What do corporations want? Slaves.

Cooperation works better than competition. We are surrounded by useless junk that we don't need and a never-ending stream of misleading and/or retarded commercials ceaselessly bombard us everywhere we go. Unfettered capitalism does not produce innovation. It produces stagnation and a huge poor population with miserable lives and polluted environment.

I would like to see the statement of the underlying principle that supports your contention that a corporation should not be allowed to pay the CEOs what they want to pay them. Suppose the CEO manages to increase the profits of the company? Why shouldn't he get paid at a commensurate level?

Support your comment. First, state the underlying principle. Please do not posit some kind of bleeding-heart plea to compassion, but state a solid principle that supports having some kinds of limits placed on the CEO-employee income ratio.

Next, what should this limit be?

Finally, and most importantly, WHO decides this, and HOW is it enforced? I assume it will be the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that enforces the ratio, of course.

I await your response.

If people feel that they are paid too little, they should leave and work someplace else. Remember it is a two-way street: The employee can left the employer high and dry if he gets a better offer, and that is exactly what many employees do.

What about "fairness?" If the people in India want to work, you are saying that we should not give them opportunities? They do not have a cheaper cost of living, but a lower standard of living. When you pay more than the person deserves, you are asking the customers to subsidize the labor or strangers.

I do not know about "unfettered" capitalism; that is really a mindless cliche, parroted by frustrated, angry and envious people, of course. But free market capitalism unleases invention and innovation, of course. And that enriches the lives of the total population. This is beyond question; the historical record is crystal clear.

Oh, we are NOT "bombarded" with commercials, of course. We receive them when we VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE to focus on media that provides them. There is always the mute button on the remote, DVDs, CDs, and the internet.

First show me where I made such a statement.

"If people feel that they are paid too little, they should leave and work someplace else. Remember it is a two-way street: The employee can left the employer high and dry if he gets a better offer, and that is exactly what many employees do."

Right. That's why there's no such thing as poor people. Oh, wait. Something doesn't add up.

"When you pay more than the person deserves, you are asking the customers to subsidize the labor or strangers."

You mean like the CEOs of the world? Yes they are paid far more than they deserve and that cost does negatively affect the other employees as well as the consumers.

Do you not know what unfettered capitalism means. It means capitalism without any rules or regulations that protect the workers and consumers. What creates innovation and invention. Human beings do, not systems of economy. If you think that if capitalism disappeared that human beings would lose the passion to invent, then I think that's silly.

You do not know whether the CEOs get more than they "deserve."

Lee Iacocca turned Chrysler around. How many tens of millions did he save or profit the company, and for years to come? And how many jobs did he save?

Two points:

1. If the CEOs make profits for the company, they deserve the tens of millions they get. They are like the free agent in sports - the smartest or best team will make them an offer in order to increase the team's profits.

2. The company should be free to pay as it pleases. The government should not step in and tell private companies what to pay. That is a form of fascism, of course. If I have my company and want to give Joe 10x what Tom makes, I can do that. It may be unwise, but I can do that and deal with the consequences.

"If capitalism disappeared?"

That is a non sequitor, an impossibility. How could you write something like that? It cannot happen? People have been capitalists for eons. The Native Americans were capitalists, for God's sake. When the socialists go to far, a black market pops up. Can't be stopped, no matter how much the Liberals-Socialists try to suppress and control.

That was obviously a rhetorical question (which you dodged). The passion to invent does not depend upon capitalism.

The reason why companies outsource to poor countries, and why these countries are the way they are, is because of the military industrial complex. there is a difference between corporatism (backed by government) and free market capitalism. If a crooked organization like the world bank forcefully(backed by a offensive government like the US) lends money to poor countries to make them more dependent and poorer, or when a war strikes irak, then corporations, who push for these actions in the first place, will go like vultures and suck everything dry. In a free market, with a contained government, that obeys the constitution, you wouldn't have those wars, and you wouldn't have corp lobbying the government to enforce their goals.

Minimum wages don't benefit the poor, they do nothing, they only result in more unemployment, because the corp. won't hire the most unskilled of the population, because they're unaffordable, and thus they become dependent on the system.

A big boss earning 400 times more, is a corporation, not a small business. If you have a small business, you earn more, but not that much.

I don't have a problem though with people earning much more.
You forget that with higher positions, their comes much more responsibility and need for creativity. Besides, being paid a lot is an incentive to want to climb the social ladder, and aspire to become better.

In a capitalist society cooperation occurs because of individuals see it as a benefit to work with each other for their own self-interest.

Going after your self-interest is the basis of human character, and a system that undermines that by the notion of an idealized idea of cooperation won't work, just like communism didn't work.

You have to accept at one point that man is greedy, and when you take the incentive away of having more then others, man becomes lazy and unproductive, that's what I believe.

Any good intended effort for equality result in a few people who convince the people, but become tyrannical and drive themselves by the moral high ground, because they think they know what's best for society.

I agree with you on the commercials and the buying of stupid things we don't need argument, and that's what makes our consumer society, but killing capitalism is not the answer, raising awareness and education is.

On the issue of pollution and consuming all the resources, I believe this has to do with money not representing real value anymore (every country is of the gold standard). Banks are able to increase the money-supply (fractional reserve banking), which severs the link between actual resources and money, so we act like there are as many resources as there is money, so we will increase our activity and consumption.

In a free market, when everyone serves his own interest, this ends up in a cooperative society, and with a good monetary policy, with sound money, where money represents real value, you will have a society that handles wisely with its resources, by the principle of prices.

The overall point is that we don't live in a capitalist society, what we have is, big government(gotten so big because of populist ideas like social security, medicare, medicaid, epa, fda, dept of education,...) that is bought by lobbies, who benefit the most from these programs, more then the people they were supposed to help, in fact people are more screwed.

If you are interested in learning about the other side of you argument, I suggest Milton Friedman, this is a good documentary: " free to choose" on youtube.

Peace

But it does. Free market capitalism provides an incredible incentive. There is some that is independent of money, of course. But a free market really adds incentive. Possibly in the arts, there is less monetary incentive, but in things for the public - Computers, automobiles, communications, efficiency in producing foods, and on and on - consider medications - it is only a rabid anti-capitalist who would claim that things would be the same without the incentives of the market. (Or some child.)

Things would not be the same, they would be better. Capitalism creates the incentive to cut corners in manufacturing, sacrificing consumer safety for profit. Products are misrepresented in advertising. Products are purposely made to last only so long so you need to replace your items. I can't change the oil in my truck because you need a special tool from Toyota to take the oil filter off... so instead of creating a product that people can maintain on their own, they hope you will have to take it to the dealer or purchase their special tool. Capitalism creates overconsumption, pollution, poverty, death, and war. Why is cannabis illegal? Capitalism. Why does the US imprison more people than any other country -- the prison industrial complex i.e. capitalism. Why does the US get a boner for war? Because war is profitable.

Humans are perfectly capable of doing things for their own sake. Only people who are motivated by greed themselves are unable to imagine that there are other people out there who have different motivation for doing things. The liberals you love to mock are the sorts of people who do things for the sake of humanity. You think without the huge profits of the pharmaceutical industry, we would just die instead of inventing medications? That's childish.

You are completely wrong about free-market capitalism, of course. All one has to do is look at cars: You complain and whine, but don't you know that cars last longer today? Many cars do not even need oil changes for 50,000 miles, for example! They have fewer breakdowns!

Why is that, pray tell?

People started buying Japanese cars mainly for that specific purpose. Rating scales came out, informing people about durability, safety, and longevity. That is free-market capitalism.

Free market capitalism's purpose is not to be beneficient, but to make profits, of course. But you and your kind put a moral dimension on something totally unrelated to it. It is like insisting that math be righteous.

Why not point to conveniences, medical technologies, medicine, improved crop gathering, electricity, cars, energy efficiency, more forestland now than during the Founding, television and computers?

Free market capitalism does not "cause" overconsumption, any more than physics "cause" atomic bombs. PEOPLE overconsume. The Native Americans despoiled many parts of America, and they used to drive buffalo herds - entire herds - off cliffs so they could get some meat and skins. I am not picking on Indians at all, so don't go in THAT direction like I notice LEFT-WINGERS usually do; I am only speaking to man's nature.

I don't think that is the issue at all....even though there may be elements of truth to what you are saying, and I do agree, dependence on the government for anything never seems to pan out well. I think the real issue is that the government has already raided the till and taken the money, or is planning on raiding the till and taking the money; money they contracted with the American people to use to provide secure retirement benefits with, and they simply don't want to admit what they did, or are planning on doing, and so -- they are now busy trying to convince the American people that the issue is something other than what it actually is.

The taxes that fund both Social Security and Medicare are not programs a working man or woman has ever had the choice to opt out of. If you are independently wealthy, and not receiving a paycheck, then you aren't being forced to contribute as much of your income, since your income is realized in ways other than a paycheck. I think it is crucial to understand the connection between how these funds are collected, who the intended recipients are, and why our government is intent on labeling these programs as entitlements.

If not being mature enough to save for retirement and emergencies is a problem unique to the working man and woman in America, then why has Congress ensured its own benefits and future, without referring to their perks (and I say perks because Congress is NOT paying for these benefits in the same way the working man and woman have been forced to pay into Social Security and Medicare) as entitlements?

Why are they never referred to as entitlements when Congress and public officials are the recipients?