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.
Good now that we have blown away the rhetorical fog, perhaps we can get down to what you consider fantasy and what you consider to be tyrannical oppression.
So, to start over which of these rights to you find objectionable.
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
I do not agree that anything listed above is a right. These are outcomes not freedoms. To achieve any of those outcomes a significant amount of force would be necessary to restrict the freedoms of others.
Every one of those points would necessarily punish some for the benefit of others. Outcomes are not freedoms. Freedom produces outcomes as variable as are human beings.
Every one of those points necessitates a "superior" human or group of humans that are above everyone else. Since people acting freely produce "evil" outcomes trying to manipulate outcomes needs to restrict the freedoms of those not deemed worthy of equal protection under the law. Who gets to define these "rights"? Are those definers superior to those who would define them differently?
Again, to the very simple concept of redistribution of wealth for any purpose whatsoever. Who are the superior beings who get to determing that some people's property rights are more important than others? What makes theft moral when it is defined as legal by specifying who is robbed and who is rewarded? Theft is either immoral or it is not. It cannot be both at the same time. If the government can commit theft than everyone should be able to commit theft. The insanity of such arrogant positions is obvious when it is held in the light of reason.
Why is theft immoral? Because someone is robbed of their property without just compensation, without consent, and has no liability in a crime against another. I know, I know, theft is enlightened when undertaken by thugs and extortionists in government or special interest groups that collectivists and megalomaniacs love.
Just what is immoral? What is just? The difference between totalitarians like FDR and his adorers and myself is really quite simple. The collectivists and elitists believe that they themselves hold a position of superiority to their fellow man to define such things at the individual level and force everyone else to comply. While I believe that their is no such definitions to be applied universally unless they are universally agreed upon. I hold no position of arrogant superiority to my fellow man. I understand that my beliefs are my own and that they dictate my life and not the lives of everyone else.
To be perfectly honest, I really do not understand the hostility towards the idea of human freedom. Everything that the collectivists and totalitarians, who apparently hate me, believe in is not anything that I would even try to stop them from doing.
Let me state again clearly. All of their goals and ideas are perfectly fine and noble if confined to a voluntary agreement among like-minded individuals. It is the moment that others are forced to comply with such goals and ideas against their will that "enlightenment" becomes evil.
They should be free to form little communes within the greater society to further their agenda, and I promise you will not hear a peep from me. Just realize that the moment their movements begin to act aggressively towards others through force, threat, and fraud they lose all moral standing and represent only injustice.
The moment that force is initiated to implement their special interest agenda to enslave others they are little more than tyrants, thugs, and criminals. This would be the first moment of justifiable government force to protect individual freedom. To defend against, and repel, the aggressive force of one group upon another. I am only talking about freedom. Those who only stand for the aggressive force of special interests upon the individual will always be my enemy.
The collectivists need to realize one important fact that they always overlook. If their ideas were so perfect and universally applicable everyone would voluntarily comply and no force would even be necessary.
The fact that there is considerable resistance to their ideas is proof of the considerable amount of evil present in their agenda.
Why is there the insatiable desire to force others to comply with their ideas? Is it not enough to band together and form only voluntary associations? If not, why not?
Good now that we have blown away the rhetorical fog, perhaps we can get down to what you consider fantasy and what you consider to be tyrannical oppression.
So, to start over which of these rights to you find objectionable.
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
In an interview in 2001 Obama complained that the Contsitution was deficient in that it is a negative statement of rights, meaning that it says what government cannot do without violating our God-given rights. He argued that the Constitution should be interpreted to include affirmative duties in the area of re-distributive justice. In effect Obama was conceding that what he (and FDR before him) wanted to do was not in the Contsitution--in other words it is unconstitutional. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It only means there is a proper way to go about it: amend the Constitution. You and all the other utopians ought to try that, for a change.
I do not agree that anything listed above is a right. These are outcomes not freedoms. To achieve any of those outcomes a significant amount of force would be necessary to restrict the freedoms of others.
So you don't believe in free markets since one of the rhetorically enumerated rights was for every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad?
You don't believe in quality universal public education since one of the rights was right to a good education.
You also don't seem to believe that government, through intervention or even non-intervention has the responsibility to provide the foundation for economic prosperty which encompass rights, 1, 2, 3, 6,
Every one of those points would necessarily punish some for the benefit of others. Outcomes are not freedoms. Freedom produces outcomes as variable as are human beings.
Quote:
Every one of those points necessitates a "superior" human or group of humans that are above everyone else.
Monopolies and oligarchical business combines aren't superior groups? Who if not government is to protect an open and free market then who?
Okay, please tell me how I can personally break up the Insurance Companies' monopoly and I'll get started on it right away.
The insurance monopoly is caused by the state you live in.States restrict what insurance companies can work in your state and what ones can not. By the states doing this it in ables the insurance companies to charge you more $$$$. You should demand that your state stop this now it un-fair to it 's people. Going by your user name you should call Albany.or what ever state capitol for the state you live in.
The insurance monopoly is caused by the state you live in.States restrict what insurance companies can work in your state and what ones can not. By the states doing this it in ables the insurance companies to charge you more $$$$. You should demand that your state stop this now it un-faier to it s people
Ah, so it isn't government that is the problem it's state government. So the individual still has to go to some form of government for redress. In short it doesn't eliminate the question.
Funny, you also exclude mention that insurance companies are exempt from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act a federal statute which would preclude any insurance company from operating in a monopolistic manner.
So you don't believe in free markets since one of the rhetorically enumerated rights was for every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad?
I absolutely believe in free markets. I do not believe in the system we have here which does not resemble a free market in any way whatsoever. What we do have is a private monopoly of our fiat currency. We do have nearly infinite special interest legislation that simply creates a business/government collusion. Most of the evils of the "free market" that people point to in American are government created and yet we wish to further destroy our freedoms by getting government even more involved. It is the same type of vicious cycle that is seen in the Welfare/Warfare State. I do believe that a free market should exist, however special interest laws make that impossible. A free market occurs naturally because of the interaction of free people. It is not regulated into existence. Once their is manipulation of the market by government force it becomes a government market and not a free one. As is evident we can see the true genius of megalomaniac "planners" in our society.
You don't believe in quality universal public education since one of the rights was right to a good education.
I don't believe in universal anything that is not universally accepted by the whole of a free people. For me to accept such a notion would require a belief in the superiority of one group above another. I especially don't entertain the notion of any special interest "right" or benefit any more than I believe anyone has a right to commit fraud, extortion, or theft against their neighbor. There is no more a "right" to public education that there is a right to steal any property, product, or service from another who has committed no crime. I don't even like the using the term "right", I prefer freedom. I think that all people should have the same level of freedom that is applied equally to all and denied to none. Selective benefit or punishment of one group versus another through the use of force is totalitarian in nature and I will never support such arrogant ideas. All collectivist policy is simple theft, thuggery, and extortion no better or noble than any criminal act.
You also don't seem to believe that government, through intervention or even non-intervention has the responsibility to provide the foundation for economic prosperty which encompass rights
I don't think that the government has a responsibility to "provide" anything. I understand that it can not provide anything that it has not first stolen from myself or my fellow man. The only responsibility of government is to protect individual freedom.
But none of this matters unless someone can answer the only questions that really matter when it comes to collectivist policies and their supporters:
"Why is there the insatiable desire to force others to comply with their ideas? Is it not enough to band together and form only voluntary associations? If not, why not?"
Ah, so it isn't government that is the problem it's state government. So the individual still has to go to some form of government for redress. In short it doesn't eliminate the question.
Funny, you also exclude mention that insurance companies are exempt from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act a federal statute which would preclude any insurance company from operating in a monopolistic manner.
The insurance monopoly is caused by the state you live in.States restrict what insurance companies can work in your state and what ones can not. By the states doing this it in ables the insurance companies to charge you more $$$$. You should demand that your state stop this now it un-fair to it 's people. Going by your user name you should call Albany.or what ever state capitol for the state you live in.
I have called and emailed my representatives and told them I was in favor of a Public Insurance Option. Congressman Anthony Weiner is rallying on behalf of my fellow New Yorkers and myself when he speaks out for the Public Option to break the Health Isurance Industrial Complex monopoly. Still don't see how it is possible to break the monoploy without the help of government though.
Ah, so it isn't government that is the problem it's state government. So the individual still has to go to some form of government for redress. In short it doesn't eliminate the question.
Funny, you also exclude mention that insurance companies are exempt from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act a federal statute which would preclude any insurance company from operating in a monopolistic manner.
Of course you have to have some sort of goverment. If you did not it would be anarchy.
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.
