Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Probably the same way other government employees do. There has to be a certain competitive wage for a government position to attract talent, that's why government workers here don't work for $7.25/hr with no benefits or pension......
"Other government employees" aren't providing a human "right".
But those people are using that land, for hunting, resources etc, [b]they are probably employing some forms of resource management techniques to enable hunting to be sustainable.
I'm a city boy so you'll have to help me out here. Wouldn't "resource management techniques" change the natural resources in some way? If so they are now privatized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MnM258
Hunting is labor just as much as putting up a fence is labor, collecting only enough wood to ensure the future sustainability of wood supplies involves labor mixing with the land and managing that land to ensure it remains productive for those purposes.
So this is basically your first point...I think. Again, I've been in a concrete jungle my whole life.
You simply can't say "I'm not going over to the lake 3 miles away and fish the remaining trout out of there as I want them to reproduce for next year" and then expect another man to come along, find the lake in its natural state, and say to himself "I won't fish here as someone else may want to fish in this lake next season".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MnM258
If I then come along, clear the land and plant my crops and shoot anybody that continues to enter the land for hunting or wood gathering then am I not affecting their natural rights by doing that?
I don't understand this point.
You've cleared the land and planted crops on it. The land is now privatized. If not for your labor the seeds wouldn't be in the newly cleared ground.
If someone comes along and doesn't know you cleared it and planted seeds? Is that what you're asking?
CEO's don't directly benefit people the same way doctors do, and are compensated to a much higher tune than doctors as well. Doctors earn their compensation, I don't feel CEO's do (or not most of it anyways)
That is crazy. You can't take over land that you decide you want because it's "not being used", a private property owner has the right to not improve or cultivate their land. Adverse possession is not quite as easy as you try to make it seem Most states require continuous occupation of the land for several years, a title or deed and proof that you paid taxes on the property while living on it. You can't just be Johnny Appleseed and scatter some seeds on a piece of land and claim you own it.
Your personal anecdote does not negate the oversight board's (BOSU, in this case) data. UK National Health care has unmet needs with the result of hundreds going blind each year instead of receiving timely appropriate treatment that would have saved their eyesight.
That affected a British MP.
She had macular degeneration, and she could have saved her eye-sight if it wasn't for the British NHS.
Drugs were available. The FDA had approved several in the US for macular degeneration.
The NHS would not provider her the drug for two reasons.
One, the NHS hadn't done their own study, because they didn't have the money.
That's a huge problem with the NHS. The government never allocates enough money for the NHS to do studies for pharmaceuticals, surgical procedures or non-surgical medical treatments in order to get them approved.
So, they go on a waiting list, and whenever NHS finally has enough money, it does the study.
The other reason was the NHS thought the drug cost too much.
That MP finally came to the US for treatment, but she'd already lost her sight in one eye, but was able to save her sight in the other eye.
So much for the NHS.
People don't understand, too, that other countries approve drugs, surgical procedures and medical treatments based on a Cost-Benefit Analysis.
If it doesn't benefit a large number of people, they won't approve it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MnM258
But the legal right to own all the property in the world was given to you by the legal framework you operate in, it isn't a negative/natural right is a positive right granted to you by government and endive by the government and legal system recognising your title.
People owned land before there were governments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
the constitution doesn't provide rights, it places restrictions on the national government and it is written to address it, not us. Funny a lawyer wouldn't know that.
That's exactly right.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "You have the right to..." rather it says "Congress shall make no law..."
And notice it says "Congress" and not "the several States".
That's because the Constitution only applied to the federal government and not to the States and not to the people.
When you use talking points like this^, it's clear your mind is made up and you're not having a real conversation��
I feel for the most part this topic comes up on this subforum every week or two, definitely at least once a month and both sides are so entrenched that the conversation always just goes around and around in circles ad nauseam, it's like beating a dead horse. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind on this topic, we basically can just copy and paste what everybody said the last go around and use that over and over every time someone posts a topic on US healthcare!
I actually did specify, that's why I put CAD to the left of the $, that's how you write out a figure in Canadian dollars, same way you would say USD$250,000 to express $250,000 American dollars
So with the current exchange rate, that means they make
$253,881.94 .......less on average than American doctors......
A good start, but nowhere near the type of salary cut that would be necessary to make single payer a viable option for Americans without paying outrageous amounts in taxes to fund it.
And let's not forget..... we're not just talking about doctors.....but all medical professionals.
Hospital administrations, nurses, lab techs, support staff, even down to the maintenance crews would all have to sacrifice for the good of the country to provide each and every American with their "right" to healthcare.
So I take it you have no problem with a poll tax then?
It seems like you're not from the US or you've never read The Constitution. It doesn't mention a poll tax...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
