I'm governed by the US constitution sorry to disappoint you
Last edited:
The Real Problem With American Healthcare: The Cost
- Thread starter CouldntBeMeTho
- Start date
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
Not disappointed at all. But you're being a little obtuse with this comment. From a constitutional standpoint, you can interpret that you're not obligated to quality controlled food, clean water, passable roads, safe environment, etc etc......
There is a mention in the preamble of promoting general welfare and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
But people tend to interpret this in ways that fit their political or social agendas.......
You can pursue your happiness all you want but don't force the government to make the service someone is providing cheaper for you just because it will make your life better...
They went to school and attained all that knowledge by themselves, if you need some help from them PAY for it.
The knowledge they gained was not free, it came at a price....."Your pursuit of happiness" should not involve someone making your life better. It depends on you making your life better.
oh so now you in favor of repeal of DADT,DOMA?
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
You can pursue your happiness all you want but don't force the government to make the service someone is providing cheaper for you just because it will make your life better...
They went to school and attained all that knowledge by themselves, if you need some help from them PAY for it.
The knowledge they gained was not free, it came at a price....."Your pursuit of happiness" should not involve someone making your life better. It depends on you making your life better.
This makes very little sense if any at all. But let's say that the government has subsidized most doctors education via student loans....Should the goverment intervene then?
Or if we're gonna take a capitalistic approach and treat a doctor's services as a commodity, is it fair to force people to use these services?
For example, if a midwife messes up during a home delivery and the baby ends up dying, should she be charged with a felony?
Is it fair to force people to use these services if they are not able to afford it?...Since its all about capitalism....
And the people can "coerce" the government into just about anything that is benefecial for a so called democratic society. Everyone having equal access to affordable healthcare is a no brainer...
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
No one should be forced to do anything, and no cost should be artificially set.
So if naturopaths tried to resolve their 4 year old's bout with pneumonia with beet juice and honey, and the child ends up dying......You would be o.k. with that?
They don't need my approval or anyone else's. If they chose to live free from modern/artificial medicine, they should be free to do so... Whether i'm ok with it or not is wholly irrelevant.
Force should never be the answer imho.
Now if you are talking liability? that's something different altogether.
No one should be forced to do anything, and no cost should be artificially set.
Scenario.
A man is drowning in a river and won't last much longer. There is one person nearby who owns a 50ft rope, and he is the only person able to save him. Unfortunately, the man is a sadist and is unwilling to help the man, nor is he willing to let anyone else nearby use his rope. No amount of money will convince him.
Is it morally wrong for someone to simply force him to give up the rope? After all, it is his property.
Nope, but they could face charges for doing so.
Cold huh?
At that point though you would expect jury nullification to kick in.
Cold huh?
At that point though you would expect jury nullification to kick in.
Lawful ≠ Moral.
Nope, but they could face charges for doing so.
Cold huh?
At that point though you would expect jury nullification to kick in.
So you are ok with the use of force in some situations.
Now let me slightly alter the scenario. Same situation - but suppose no private citizens were able to take the rope because they lacked the power. Would it be morally wrong for the government (though, say, a nearby cop or a federal agent) to force him to give up the rope?
Would it be morally wrong for the government to simply make a law saying that, in a life-or-death situation, they can temporarily commandeer equipment?
No one should be forced to do anything, and no cost should be artificially set.
So you are ok with the use of force in some situations.
Now let me slightly alter the scenario. Same situation - but suppose no private citizens were able to take the rope because they lacked the power. Would it be morally wrong for the government (though, say, a nearby cop or a federal agent) to force him to give up the rope?
Would it be morally wrong for the government to simply make a law saying that, in a life-or-death situation, they can temporarily commandeer equipment?
I'm ok with it in no situation save self defense, or defense of others against unwarranted aggressors. You asked whether it was morally wrong or not to save the man using force... and morally it isnt wrong, but the force used to acquire the rope is(if you follow). Its basically doing an evil to save some one. Its both wrong and right in this scenario
In that situation I would use force to save the man myself, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize the transgression.
Yes, it would be wrong in both those new instances.