How wealth is created...

[Cy]

Cy, I agree with you that there is no inherent right to health care. It can be thought of like any other commodity, if that is how you choose to view it. I think it is wise to give health care to all citizens.

It sounds like you are for an every-man-for-himself society. I think the outcome would be brutally unpleasant and violent.

Cy: I am not for an "every man for himself" society. Our constitution is. That is the contract that I was born into, that defines my relationship with you. That is, I am not bound by what you think is wise.

You are not bound to what I think, and you know I never suggested such a thing. But we do have a society and a government which responds to the public will. The government spends some of your money helping people.

Your notion that the constitution has created a society of totally independent operators is an extreme view. I'm not saying it is irrational, I'm sure you can (with a little help from Wist) document your interpretation by quoting the founding fathers. But the country is very far removed from your thinking.

No taxation without representation...it is simply wrong to run a deficit and pass it on to those who are not able to vote yet. And I don't care what the public will is...once upon a time the public will allowed for burning witches, slavery, and all sorts of shit that was fundamentally wrong....big gov't that isn't paid for by the people using it is fundamentally wrong. Anything other than a flat tax and a balanced budget can never be correct in my personal opinion.

Cy: But here's the thing. We are not a democracy that responds to the people's will. We are a Republic that goes about its business according to certain set rules.

Imagine playing Monopoly, and half way through the game, you're winning, and the other three players say, "OK, who wants to vote that Cy has to give up his green properties to us, and share his money?" The three players vote "yes."

That is not only unfair, but it is at root immoral. The three players, along with you, can say, "Yeah, but the will of the people playing this game has changed."

And I'd say, "Tough. Those aren't the rules I subscribed to when someone said, 'Let's play Monopoly' and I agreed."

Well, my friend, by virtue of my being born in this Republic, which is under a constitution, someone said, "Hey, let's play freedom," and I happen to really like that game, and I really like it when it's played by the rules.

Democracy leads to anarchy, and anarchy leads to tyrrany.

Don't you think that the notion that a majority of people can vote to take your money from you is a wee bit disconcerting? What else can the majority of people do to you? Take away your freedom? Enslave you?

Hey, only the constitution says slavery is bad, but as you say, the will of the people dictates where we go, not our constitution.

Be careful how you argue. We don't make decisions based on feelings.

[HowardRoark]

Cy, I agree with you that there is no inherent right to health care. It can be thought of like any other commodity, if that is how you choose to view it. I think it is wise to give health care to all citizens.

It sounds like you are for an every-man-for-himself society. I think the outcome would be brutally unpleasant and violent.

Cy: I am not for an "every man for himself" society. Our constitution is. That is the contract that I was born into, that defines my relationship with you. That is, I am not bound by what you think is wise.

You are not bound to what I think, and you know I never suggested such a thing. But we do have a society and a government which responds to the public will. The government spends some of your money helping people.

Your notion that the constitution has created a society of totally independent operators is an extreme view. I'm not saying it is irrational, I'm sure you can (with a little help from Wist) document your interpretation by quoting the founding fathers. But the country is very far removed from your thinking.

No taxation without representation...it is simply wrong to run a deficit and pass it on to those who are not able to vote yet. And I don't care what the public will is...once upon a time the public will allowed for burning witches, slavery, and all sorts of shit that was fundamentally wrong....big gov't that isn't paid for by the people using it is fundamentally wrong. Anything other than a flat tax and a balanced budget can never be correct in my personal opinion.

Cy: But here's the thing. We are not a democracy that responds to the people's will. We are a Republic that goes about its business according to certain set rules.

Imagine playing Monopoly, and half way through the game, you're winning, and the other three players say, "OK, who wants to vote that Cy has to give up his green properties to us, and share his money?" The three players vote "yes."

That is not only unfair, but it is at root immoral. The three players, along with you, can say, "Yeah, but the will of the people playing this game has changed."

And I'd say, "Tough. Those aren't the rules I subscribed to when someone said, 'Let's play Monopoly' and I agreed."

Well, my friend, by virtue of my being born in this Republic, which is under a constitution, someone said, "Hey, let's play freedom," and I happen to really like that game, and I really like it when it's played by the rules.

Democracy leads to anarchy, and anarchy leads to tyrrany.

Don't you think that the notion that a majority of people can vote to take your money from you is a wee bit disconcerting? What else can the majority of people do to you? Take away your freedom? Enslave you?

Hey, only the constitution says slavery is bad, but as you say, the will of the people dictates where we go, not our constitution.

Be careful how you argue. We don't make decisions based on feelings.

I think Bobble agrees with you....were you talking to Harlan?

[Cy]

Cy, I agree with you that there is no inherent right to health care. It can be thought of like any other commodity, if that is how you choose to view it. I think it is wise to give health care to all citizens.

It sounds like you are for an every-man-for-himself society. I think the outcome would be brutally unpleasant and violent.

Cy: I am not for an "every man for himself" society. Our constitution is. That is the contract that I was born into, that defines my relationship with you. That is, I am not bound by what you think is wise.

You are not bound to what I think, and you know I never suggested such a thing. But we do have a society and a government which responds to the public will. The government spends some of your money helping people.

Your notion that the constitution has created a society of totally independent operators is an extreme view. I'm not saying it is irrational, I'm sure you can (with a little help from Wist) document your interpretation by quoting the founding fathers. But the country is very far removed from your thinking.

No taxation without representation...it is simply wrong to run a deficit and pass it on to those who are not able to vote yet. And I don't care what the public will is...once upon a time the public will allowed for burning witches, slavery, and all sorts of shit that was fundamentally wrong....big gov't that isn't paid for by the people using it is fundamentally wrong. Anything other than a flat tax and a balanced budget can never be correct in my personal opinion.

Cy: But here's the thing. We are not a democracy that responds to the people's will. We are a Republic that goes about its business according to certain set rules.

Imagine playing Monopoly, and half way through the game, you're winning, and the other three players say, "OK, who wants to vote that Cy has to give up his green properties to us, and share his money?" The three players vote "yes."

That is not only unfair, but it is at root immoral. The three players, along with you, can say, "Yeah, but the will of the people playing this game has changed."

And I'd say, "Tough. Those aren't the rules I subscribed to when someone said, 'Let's play Monopoly' and I agreed."

Well, my friend, by virtue of my being born in this Republic, which is under a constitution, someone said, "Hey, let's play freedom," and I happen to really like that game, and I really like it when it's played by the rules.

Democracy leads to anarchy, and anarchy leads to tyrrany.

Don't you think that the notion that a majority of people can vote to take your money from you is a wee bit disconcerting? What else can the majority of people do to you? Take away your freedom? Enslave you?

Hey, only the constitution says slavery is bad, but as you say, the will of the people dictates where we go, not our constitution.

Be careful how you argue. We don't make decisions based on feelings.

I think Bobble agrees with you....were you talking to Harlan?

Cy: Yes, I get lost in this house of mirrors. It's like some sort of surrealistic film from Weimar.

[bobblehead]

xx

edit...didn't read next posts before I responded.