i think it is apropiate for you to know.
link: http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-...507070204.html
what ya think?
Printable View
i think it is apropiate for you to know.
link: http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-...507070204.html
what ya think?
Hmm. I heard about something similar almost eight months ago, although I don't think it was developed to the point where they could administer it in any widespread amount. In any case, it would need to go through testing, then get approved by the FDA and other similar organizations, and then they would need to be able to find a way to make it affordable and whatnot. Hopefully they can make this available en masse; it'd definitely take away one major cause of fear in today's world, not to mention prevent countless deaths.
yeah, thats pretty much what i thought. i wonder if they'll actually make it affordable.
Yeah.
I'm fairly sure this won't prevent an infected individual from being able to infect others, although since the articles provide no detail on that it's entirely possible that I'm wrong.
In short, this is excellent news, but it's no excuse to go out having reckless unprotected sex either. If nothing else, it'll end up costing youloads of money.
Massive orgies? Eh? Eh?
.opt
Considering the 100 pills/day, thousands of dollars per year treatment they have now, this can't be much worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by radyk05
Anyway, scientists have been working on this for ages. They're bound to get it right sooner or later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
from my poitn of viw you are right
this is actually a great idea, really simple if you think about it
hopefully it works and doesn't screw other crap up
Why didn't I think of that? Great piece of intelligent thinking. :up:
no doubt it will get patented. and then they will charge huge amounts of money for it. how come only the rich can afford to get sick? and it will do no good for 99.99% of the people with aids.
Since it's taken years and millions of dollars in research, they kind of have to charge money for it to be able to keep on making it. They could give the first thousand or so treatments away for free, and then they'd go out of business. They could even give out more at-cost, but then they wouldn't have the money for continued research into it to be able to make more cost-effective AIDS treatments.
oh i see so allowing only the rich to survive and depriving the most needy of these drusg is a good thing i get it now. america is after all deprived of morals.
Once again, your self-righteousness has solved nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
This is a life or death situation, Cloud. Please, for the love of humanity, move over and let this drug be produced as it should and ought to - before you use it as a tool, to be given based on "need" and personal injustice.
It is a life and death situation, and if people cannot have access to the drug, they will die. I don't see how Cloud is being self-righteous about this. To me it is nothing less than criminal negligence for a government to allow people to die when there's any possibility of keeping them alive. (Well, unless they're a braindead vegetable like Terri Schiavo, but that's another issue entirely)
Tell me how you propose to give a drug away for free and continue production. And then tell me how many scientists are willing to continue, under such a creed.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
let this drug to be produced but do not insist by high prices that life is purely acheivable by the rich. those who need this most are poor.
and yes charge for it. but do not charge to make profit. to line some ceo's pocket and buy him a new swimming pool. the cost should cover production and new research. you cannot turn aids into a profit machine. the suffering of millions into a new private jet. death into a stock price.
*sorry if this double posts*
the scientists willing to research and develop a drug for the good of mankind are the moral and good ones. the scientists developing a drug to fill their wallets are just profiteers in misery.
Edit by Kishi: If you're not a newbie, you should know how to use the Edit button.
Why would any scientist want to continue creating the drug? Why should they have to sacrifice their life for the sake of others? How do you think he will continue to make a drug when he is unable to afford food?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
If we make AIDS a profit machine, the disease would cease to exist.The scientists willing to research and develop a drug because the recognize that the people who need it are willing to pay for it - they are moral. The ones who kill themselves to create it are profiteers in misery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
no it would perpetuate. how do you expect to rid the world of a disease if the people cannot afford to be cured? this drug will safe only two type of people. the rich with aids. and the ceo of the company's pilot.
we can pay for the scientists to work on this and still make it affordable. we just don't have to line the pockets of those you seek to turn aids into a new porsche.
Or have the government take away like 1% of their military budget and
pay for this drug, then they could probably give the drug to every
person--healthy included--in the world. Aha!
.opt
Who will pay for the scientists. And how much? How much is a "profit"? And I think if anyone deserves a porsche, it's the man that helps cure AIDS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Note how I said the government would be negligent? In other words, they would pitch in the money. Any government that allows its citizens to die under its watch is grossly neglecting one of the primary duties of government, which is to protect its citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
the scientists will be paid for the by the price of the drug as i said.
profit = higher prices = less people able to afford = more death.
it's a simple equation. the mean who profits from aids will not end the disease he will only further seperate the rich from the poor. the rich will be living. the poor will be dead. that is not a man who deserves a porsche. a man who perpetuates the suffering of people deserves nothing.
Optium has a point. Cutting back by even 1/10th of a percent on the military could probably pay the scientists for the development of the drug.. and possibly then some.
I don't have a problem with the scientists getting paid for thier work. But I also don't care for when medicine is turned into a money making scheme by companies, so that only the well off(the ones with less health problems on average) can afford it when they need it.
Like Opt said, if for example the US just took a few percents of their military budget, it would solve a lot of financial problems.
If selling the drug becomes profitable doesnt that mean the drug can be researched and improved further? And personally considering these people have taken a step in curing aids, yeah I think they deserve some sort of profit from someone.
scientists should be paid for their work i did not deny that. but ceo's should not use this to gain profit from misery.
But again doesnt it need to be sold profitably to be further researched and improved. Y'know, to save lives and prevent misery and stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
by profit i mean gains in wealth in the company and it's owners. not to produce it, pay the men who make it, and further research. those are fine.
but to simply pocket the money would be wrong. patenting a drug would lead to that. it is the only reason to patent.
of course drugs can't be free (they used to be on the nhs til they ruined it) but they can be as cheap as possible. they can be used for good and not just to make money.
The government is not your keeper, nor is it responsible for your welfare. You are not entitled to anything you cannot give yourself. It is the "entitlement" myth which started welfare and such(my step-uncle calls this generation the Age of Entitlement; Ayn Rand called it the Age of Envy. Both are extremely appropriate). "I don't have food...so I'm entitled to it - someone must give it to me." "I don't have money for clothes - someone must give it to me." "I don't have a money for $50,000 medication - but I'm entitled to it - so someone must give it to me." How does the government get this money to "give" to you? By taking it from the people that have it.Quote:
To me it is nothing less than criminal negligence for a government to allow people to die when there's any possibility of keeping them alive. (Well, unless they're a braindead vegetable like Terri Schiavo, but that's another issue entirely)
Well, if only 2% of the population can pay for it, then it has to drop prices to meet demand. There's many millions of people that have AIDS - any coorporation that wants to make money to continue production has to meet the biggest chunk of the demand that it can. This is the law of supply and demand in a free market. It could only price-fix with government money. Either way, the government cannot say "you have to set your prices at this" - and if they don't, the business will naturally have the lowest prices it can to meet demands, which will make it more money, which will mean it can spend more money on more research and better equipment, which means it can discover more cost-effective methods of production, which means prices will lower to meet more demand, etc. It's the endless, natural cycle of a free market.Quote:
let this drug to be produced but do not insist by high prices that life is purely acheivable by the rich. those who need this most are poor.
Only by protecting against the infringements of freedom, i.e., the use of force. The government cannot make it illegal to walk close to the edge of a building; it is not the government's fault if you trip and fall over. The government cannot protect its people by infringing on its peoples rights; to do so is the grossest contradiction of all time - a justification for dictatorship.Quote:
Any government that allows its citizens to die under its watch is grossly neglecting one of the primary duties of government, which is to protect its citizens.
Exactly.Quote:
If selling the drug becomes profitable doesnt that mean the drug can be researched and improved further? And personally considering these people have taken a step in curing aids, yeah I think they deserve some sort of profit from someone.
And the people who discovered the polio vaccine profitted from misery, and the people who discovered vaccines for malaria, flu, etc. all profitted from misery. This is the attitude of what Ayn Rand called the "hatred of the good for being good" - instead of doing the world a tremendous service by spending enormous millions and countless hours researching a vaccine which could potentially save millions of lives, they were evil because they "profitted from misery."Quote:
scientists should be paid for their work i did not deny that. but ceo's should not use this to gain profit from misery.
I will say this - without those CEOs and those rich businessmen and their money and their investments, our life expectancy would not have quadrupled in the last several hundred years. But they're evil because they make a profit. They're evil because they "take" so much out of the community and don't give anything in return, despite them providing jobs for thousands of people and giving the world the benefit of their minds - their investments, their funded research, their funded technologies, and they only receive a profit.
Not reading through all that. What exactly makes one person's property more important than another person's life?
actually my life expectancy is higher because i get free health czre, (government did that). it's illegal for me to work in a factory or down the pits til i'm 16 (government did that too). sanitation was governed so i didn't get cholera (wanna guess who did that?) my bread doesn't have led in it and i don't life opposite a dung heap. (this too). my houses was built to regulations which meant it had clean running water, windows, ventilation, electricity and gas (and this). because people get a free education and so can go on to do great things (one guess). food is cheaper and in better condition (yep this one too). the air is cleaner (and this one). noone does 90mph down my street (they did that too). anymore....? yeah but it's time to stop.
taking money from the grossly rich is not the death of humanity.
It's not their property - it's their right to their property. That's freedom. Only a dictatorship - the grossest evil - can take what is, by right, one person's and give it to another.
If I worked and invested hours and millions into the research of a product, it is my product. No one else has the right to it - no one else is entitled to it. If they want it, I must either give it to them of my own free will, or trade value for value(money in exchange for my product).
"Give me liberty, or give me death."
1. So you're saying that your life expectancy was no way effected by the lightbulb, heating, air-conditioning, medical advances, electricity, and any sort of advance in technology? Food is cheaper because it's produced cheaper.Quote:
actually my life expectancy is higher because i get free health czre, (government did that). it's illegal for me to work in a factory or down the pits til i'm 16 (government did that too). sanitation was governed so i didn't get cholera (wanna guess who did that?) my bread doesn't have led in it and i don't life opposite a dung heap. (this too). my houses was built to regulations which meant it had clean running water, windows, ventilation, electricity and gas (and this). because people get a free education and so can go on to do great things (one guess). food is cheaper and in better condition (yep this one too). the air is cleaner (and this one). noone does 90mph down my street (they did that too). anymore....? yeah but it's time to stop.
I would argue that the rest of those would've happened anyway(and even better) or were unnecessary.
It is the death of freedom.Quote:
taking money from the grossly rich is not the death of humanity.
How much money do I have to make before it's okay to steal from me?
I don't care if I have only one dollar or one million dollars - NO ONE is entitled to it.
You didn't answer the question. Why is their right to property more important than someone else's right to life? From what you're saying, taxes are an abomination and any government that taxes people should not exist. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if a government doesn't tax people, it can't do *anything.*
Taxes are an evil, but they are an utterly necessary one and far preferable to letting people die just because a few selfish people can't be arsed to pitch in a few dollars.
and taxes don't actually reduce anyone's actual income. such an idea is nonesense. more taxes just slow inflation.
if you have less money to spend then you can buy less. thus to keep up sales prices don't grow as rapidly or fall. thus you can afford much of the same as before.
conversely. if no taxes exist we can speed up inflation. we can make things more expensive quickr because people will be able to afford it and companies will make even larger profits. and so things are more expensive and so quality of life imrpves at the same rate as if you were taxes massively.
this is the law of inflation. more money in the market = higher prices.
"Give me liberty, or give me death." it's funny you quote this and don't see the irony. for many the excess charging and patenting of life saving medicines rids most people of this choice.
heating (gas an electricity0 both were government controlled when they were both necesssry (ww2) to keep the nation alive. same with the railways and pretty much everything else. and why was this? because it was deemed to be part of the war effort and so needed to be as effecient as possible. effecient? in a government owned system? can it be true? did we really win that war?
medical advacnes also in this country are mostly done by government nhs or univeristies (free because of the government too)
food is also cheaper becuase of the railway system (who used to own that one again?)
greed is the sign of an american man. the unwillingness to give up a small portion of his collosal wealth to help the sick and dying.
Taxes are necessary - and I would say that a person is pretty stupid if he or she was unwilling to pay for a government that protects his or her interests. What Raistlin is saying is to bring government down to its proper form, and taxes are a good. I don't want to be taxed because of any other reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
And, Raistlin (and I) is saying that right to property and right to life shouldn't even be coinciding. It should never be a question of his property or his life. They are seperate beings; we're not a collective. In this case, because a man has AIDS does not give him the benefit of stealing from another and then crying that he had a right to life and therefore he is allowed the "right" to steal from another man. That's a slap in the face to rights in general.
You must be laughing quite a bit; I don't see any irony whatsoever. You're justifying the end of freedom in its vilest form: in a self-righteous tone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Yeah, and the USSR existed for eighty years. That didn't make it right. Pragmatism (the idea that whatever works is good) is really a simple (and incorrect) viewpoint on life.Quote:
did we really win that war?
Socialism tries to use this claim a lot. Everything is "free". 'Wouldn't you like free health care?' Well, obviously; I would love to just have it rain medication and take it from the sky. This is ignoring reality. We have to produce it. Single, individual men and women are advancing medical science; the government lays claim on it. Then it taxes its people an insane amount of money (making them poorer) and gives it to certain people who need it. It's not free. Nothing is ever free. When you begin to see the value behind money, you'll find that free-anything doesn't exist.Quote:
medical advacnes also in this country are mostly done by government nhs or univeristies (free because of the government too)
Please; see above.Quote:
food is also cheaper becuase of the railway system (who used to own that one again?)
In the way you mean it: yes, it is. In the way you mean it, I hope I'm greedy until the day I die.Quote:
greed is the sign of an american man.
This is, once again, a perversion. When will you stop your atavistic quest and listen once more: Many individuals are more than willing to help out in the spirit of good will. I do, as well. But the moment a person tells me I must help, or that he'll steal the money if I won't support it, then I'll treat him as he is: a criminal.Quote:
the unwillingness to give up a small portion of his collosal wealth to help the sick and dying.
Taxes are only evil if they're involuntary - because then it's stealing.
It's not - they're one in the same. You can't have one without the other.Quote:
You didn't answer the question. Why is their right to property more important than someone else's right to life?
Only in a government-controlled economy. In a free market, the market acts as its own check on inflation.Quote:
conversely. if no taxes exist we can speed up inflation. we can make things more expensive quickr because people will be able to afford it and companies will make even larger profits. and so things are more expensive and so quality of life imrpves at the same rate as if you were taxes massively.
So now you're arguing against patents? Nobody else is entitled to the product of anyone else's life.Quote:
"Give me liberty, or give me death." it's funny you quote this and don't see the irony. for many the excess charging and patenting of life saving medicines rids most people of this choice.
It is ironic you mention the railways. The cause of the nonsensical, destructive antitrust laws.Quote:
food is also cheaper becuase of the railway system (who used to own that one again?)
Justice is the sign of an American man - neither giving nor accepting the unearned. If I give something(and I have before), then I do so voluntarily, because I want to, for my own reasons. Forcing me to equates with pointing a gun to my head and demanding my money.Quote:
greed is the sign of an american man. the unwillingness to give up a small portion of his collosal wealth to help the sick and dying.
Sense is not being made here. How are right to property and right to life the same thing at all? Last I checked, the right to property and the right to life are two completely different items, and one of them is guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence, and one is not.
And how is it stealing to tax rich people so that people who can't afford medical treatment can continue to live? If taxing the masses is not theft, then I don't see how a "life tax" would qualify as stealing.
It sounds to me like what you two are arguing is because a few rich people don't want to pay the miniscule amount of money it would take to keep poor people with AIDS alive, those people don't deserve to be allowed to live. Is that what you're arguing? If so, come right out and admit it.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Note that when that at the foundation of the country, we did not have income tax, we did not have government subsidies, we did not have welfare, we did not have any of that socialist crap. You cannot have the right to your life without the right to the product of your right. The right to your life in and of itself presupposes property rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
Who said taxing the masses is not theft?Quote:
And how is it stealing to tax rich people so that people who can't afford medical treatment can continue to live? If taxing the masses is not theft, then I don't see how a "life tax" would qualify as stealing.
If researchers and investors had not already shelled out millions of dollars, we would not have come this far. But they did so by choice, of their own free will. It was not stolen from them.Quote:
It sounds to me like what you two are arguing is because a few rich people don't want to pay the miniscule amount of money it would take to keep poor people with AIDS alive, those people don't deserve to be allowed to live. Is that what you're arguing? If so, come right out and admit it.
No, the 'goverment' doesn't give you anything. Other people do. Other people, that work hard and long, pay for your healthcare, education and virtually everything the 'goverment' gives you. And that's cool - but abusing it is sheer evil.Quote:
i get free health czre, (government did that)
Scientists made a medicine that can save lives. Awesome. However, it is THEIR drug, the fruit of their work. Of-course they will use it - but no-one should TAKE it from them. That's a crime. The goverment should buy the drug in large qunatities (meaning it would get it for cheap), then dispense it to the public for even cheaper prices (using money earned from taxes, trusts etc), thus using the drug efficiently. However, saying the drug belongs to everyone and thus the scientists who made it are 'greedy Americans' for wanting some profit off of it is.. well, horrible.
I'd watch my mouth if I were you. I'm not an American, and neither are you, I believe. I know quite a few people who would rid you of a limb or two for dissing their nationality and people. Not to mention, it's wrong and bigoted to say something like that. :)Quote:
greed is the sign of an american man. the unwillingness to give up a small portion of his collosal wealth to help the sick and dying.
okay i take back my thing about all americans being greedy and selfish and being totally cool with watching people die for money. some americans are like that. and far more than they should be. sorry and i hope my apology is accepted.
what you earn is not your life. you are not the car you drive, you are not the pool in your back garden, you are not your bank account, you are not your new armani jacket, you are not your italian leather shoes, you are not your 50' plasma tv. your life is what you acheive. and what you acheive is not the money you make. but the difference you make.
"did we really win that war?
Yeah, and the USSR existed for eighty years. That didn't make it right. Pragmatism (the idea that whatever works is good) is really a simple (and incorrect) viewpoint on life."
so what wasn't right? winning the war? or changing our systems to their most effecient forms so that we could win the war? either way it's pretty shocking that you would consider either an evil.
the right to life is above that of property. you can have less property and live happily. you cannot have less life.
so, a guy studies in a private college years and years without any kind of grant ('cause his parents were rich but hated him for some reason so they didn't pay for his education) to become a doctor. a good doctor, mind you. he worked his ass off so he could pay for his studies in medicine and all that came with the student life. people need his help (after all, he is a doctor). is it wrong for him to charge the people who he helps?
well here doctor's don't charge anyway. i don't agree with private treatment or the queu jumpers who take it and the profiteering doctors who provide it.
and no a person should not be treated any differently due to how much he earns. a poor man has as much a right to these drugs as a rich man. the poor do not deserve to die for being poor.
and this is why socialism for such things is the right way. health care is a right everyone should be equally treated for. being rich does not entitle you to life anymore than a rich man. and the nhs does this. it does not provide for the rich purely for being rich and does not shun the poor for being poor. to say that a man is more entitled to life than others purely because of his bank details has got to be wrong.
that is quite a way round to answer your radyk05 but i hope you get the jist.
No, it does not. You fail to explain how the right to your life includes the right to the product of your life. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say you get to keep every cent you earn, nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say it should be a right. It seems to me that the right to go on living supersedes the right to keep every cent you own because the Founders explicitly enumerated it as a right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Oh, right. I guess funding government's not really that important.. Without "this socialist crap" we would have no armed forces, no law enforcement, no education system. Sounds like anarchy to me, but heaven forbid the government should steal from the people!Quote:
Who said taxing the masses is not theft?
You didn't answer my question. Are you arguing that people who can't afford to have treatment for AIDS deserve to die? A simple yes or no will do.Quote:
If researchers and investors had not already shelled out millions of dollars, we would not have come this far. But they did so by choice, of their own free will. It was not stolen from them.
He'd be earning money. The government would supply it for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by radyk05
If the government can take a cent, it can take everything. How can I have the right to my life if I have not right to its product - to my own earned effort? The government tells me I'm responsible for my mistakes - via jail time - but I'm not responsible for my profits? It's contradictory.Quote:
No, it does not. You fail to explain how the right to your life includes the right to the product of your life. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say you get to keep every cent you earn, nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say it should be a right. It seems to me that the right to go on living supersedes the right to keep every cent you own because the Founders explicitly enumerated it as a right.
Also, it's called the 10th amendment - any rights not granted to the federal government is reserved for the people.
No - actually, armed forces, law enforcement, and legal system are the only moral forms of government, and if the government was broken down to just that, it could survive on minimum income.Quote:
Oh, right. I guess funding government's not really that important.. Without "this socialist crap" we would have no armed forces, no law enforcement, no education system. Sounds like anarchy to me, but heaven forbid the government should steal from the people!
I'm saying that they DON'T have the right to make a claim on another person's life - they are not entitled to anything they themselves cannot earn. I'm not entitled to a cent that my own effort and my own mind cannot grant me.Quote:
You didn't answer my question. Are you arguing that people who can't afford to have treatment for AIDS deserve to die? A simple yes or no will do.
And where would the government get that money?Quote:
He'd be earning money. The government would supply it for him.
You still haven't explained how the constitutional right to life extends to a right of property; you've just thrown rhetoric at me. It's good to know that you think people who can't afford to live don't deserve to live, though. Now at least I have some idea of where you really stand.
The tenth amendment delegates powers to the people; they have chosen to elect leaders who have chosen to tax them. If they did not want these leaders, they would not elect them. I find it highly unlikely that government could sustain the armed forces alone on "minimum income," which I don't understand and can't find in Wikipedia. Military spending alone accounts for billions of dollars in the budget.
Following your logic, it looks like you're saying that if people are incapable of having a job, they don't deserve to earn money. Is that the case? Again, a simple yes or no will suffice.
And of course I'm saying that the money should come through taxation. Armed forces, law enforcement and legal system are important to me, but education and making sure people can live are more so. A functioning society cannot exist without education, and it reeks of Social Darwinism to say that those who cannot afford education do not deserve it.
How have I not? It's called the 10th amendment. And you have yet to explain to me how I can have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" if the government can take whatever they want, whenever they want.Quote:
You still haven't explained how the constitutional right to life extends to a right of property; you've just thrown rhetoric at me. It's good to know that you think people who can't afford to live don't deserve to live, though. Now at least I have some idea of where you really stand.
I never said that they don't deserve to live. I said that they don't deserve anyone else's life. I'm not entitled to anything from you that you yourself don't give willingly. If a poor person with AIDS wants to ask for free treatment, the owners of the treatment are free to give it by choice. But once anyone who proclaims the need for something is entitled to it, you have communism - the most anti-life, anti-good, anti-progress form of government ever conceived.
Because we have more invested in the armed forces than we need solely for our protection.Quote:
The tenth amendment delegates powers to the people; they have chosen to elect leaders who have chosen to tax them. If they did not want these leaders, they would not elect them. I find it highly unlikely that government could sustain the armed forces alone on "minimum income," which I don't understand and can't find in Wikipedia. Military spending alone accounts for billions of dollars in the budget.
No - I'm saying they're incapable of earning money. Welfare and unemployment doesn't allow poor people to earn money; it takes the money from those who have earned it and gave it to the people who haven't.Quote:
Following your logic, it looks like you're saying that if people are incapable of having a job, they don't deserve to earn money. Is that the case? Again, a simple yes or no will suffice.
We didn't have these socialist systems until the 30s/40s. Under a non-statist government, we had less a percentage of poor people then.
Quote:
You're saying that the "ends justify the means." But if so, where does that end? Murder is justified, as long as it clears the way for public property; slavery is justified if those enslaved fight for the country(how do you feel about drafts? If you disagree with them, you contradict yourself); theft is justified if it is done for the "public good." What is the public? Is it everybody within a specific area? But not everybody uses a new road, or a new bridge. Then what is it? Is it some undefinable, intangible body over the individuals? If you can't define the term, how does the phrase "public good" even have any meaning? "This is done for JKSGDUF398DSFS!#." Does that make any more or less sense?
The "public" is merely a collection of individuals. Check the "needs of the masses vs. the needs of the individual" in EoEO - that thread supports pretty much everything I've said here. If the public is merely a collection of individuals, then the "good of the public" must be in the best interest of every individual. The only common interest every individual has is freedom. Therefore, logically, the only moral purpose for the government is to ensure freedom for everybody - by the exclusion of the initiation of force from human relationships. The logical conclusion of freedom is that no person has the right to initiate the use of force - this includes the government. Only retalitory force(self-defense, throwing someone in jail) is acceptable.
Force and freedom are opposites. Once a government legalizes the initation of force to seize private property by subjective whim(for the good of the undefinable "public") or to steal private income by equally subjective whim, it loses any right to proclaim freedom - it becomes a dictatorship. Such was evolution of Soviet Russia and other communist nations.
If the government was limited back to its only moral purpose - to protect individual rights, then it wouldn't need all this looted money from the people, and could go without income tax entirely - if necessary, resorting to other means of fund-raising(other means of taxation not based on income, charities, etc.). Also, those areas bereft of public funds, may even benefit from privitization. Privitization encourages competition, and competition encourages development - in a free nation. Such is the sound principle of capitalism. Note that in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the degree of freedom of a country was proportional to its economic, industrial, and technological growth. The United States, by far the freest, achieved the most. Now, ever since the introduction of the welfare state, the degree of freedom is lowering, and the US is losing its standing as the industrial powerhouse. Not to say that the US is not the freest country(which it is) or probably still the leading economic, technological, and industrial nation(which it probably is in every respect) - but that it doesn't have such a huge lead anymore. With public education, public welfare, public social security - things are stagnating. This is no coincidence.
Freedom and force cannot coexist. I cannot go up to my neighbor, take out a gun, and demand he hand over his income or his property; why can the government do so to me? When a government claims a right on the life of every person in it, it turns from a free government to a dictatorship - ruler by force. There can be no compromise where freedom - the right to your life - is concerned.
Ever since public education, the US has been dropping in educational standards. We're now...what, 25th in the world? With our economic power, that's ridiculous. Privitization mean competition - which increases quality and decreases price. With privitized education("public" education is NOT free education), we would be getting BETTER education for LESS money - and it would be getting better and cheaper all the time.Quote:
And of course I'm saying that the money should come through taxation. Armed forces, law enforcement and legal system are important to me, but education and making sure people can live are more so. A functioning society cannot exist without education, and it reeks of Social Darwinism to say that those who cannot afford education do not deserve it.
Because I don't see how property is equal to life. You're just equating the two with one another without any sort of explanation whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
And evidently you need to brush up on your Constitutional history. The Tenth Amendment does not say that the government has no power to tax its citizens, because the Sixteenth Amendment expressly gives the government the power to levy an income tax.
And the government isn't taking whatever it wants, whenever it wants. Elected representatives are carrying out the will of the people they represent taking the amount of money the masses want them to take. It's the will of the people because they had to vote to approve the Sixteenth Amendment to be passed for it to become a part of the constitution.
I fail to see how giving people's tax money to people who can't afford to do things necessary to subsist equates to communism. I suppose you can loosely term welfare a form of socialism if you're using the American Conservative definition of socialism, but just because the government employs a socialist program to give people the right to life it explicitly guarantees its citizens doesn't make it a socialist government. A socialist government would be one which took away all income its citizens earned and redistributed it equally amongst all of its citizens.Quote:
I never said that they don't deserve to live. I said that they don't deserve anyone else's life. I'm not entitled to anything from you that you yourself don't give willingly. If a poor person with AIDS wants to ask for free treatment, the owners of the treatment are free to give it by choice. But once anyone who proclaims the need for something is entitled to it, you have communism - the most anti-life, anti-good, anti-progress form of government ever conceived.
That would sustain it for a few years, not indefinitely. After that time period expires, what would you propose?Quote:
Because we have more invested in the armed forces than we need solely for our protection.
Er. If they don't have a job, they can't earn money. Are you proposing to let them starve? It sounds like it.Quote:
No - I'm saying they're incapable of earning money. Welfare and unemployment doesn't allow poor people to earn money; it takes the money from those who have earned it and gave it to the people who haven't.
We didn't have socialist systems before the 1930s? Five acres and a mule is socialism. You're using post hoc ergo propter hoc logic here. We have poverty because the amount of people in urban areas has grown drastically since the turn of the century, and no longer can people simply make food for themselves, because real estate is at a premium. It used to be that anyone who wanted land could have it, and thus we didn't have a poverty problem. Nowadays, that's not the case.Quote:
We didn't have these socialist systems until the 30s/40s. Under a non-statist government, we had less a percentage of poor people then.
You're using a slippery slope argument on "the ends justify the means." The government has the power to tax people because it is delegated by the Sixteenth Amendment. It does not have the power to seize anything it wants, because that power is not delegated to it by anything, and the only thing that would make it acceptable is if the citizens were to vote for such an amendment.
But it would still cost poor people money that they didn't have. I see no evidence that vouchers work; I have some statistics that I'll quote later.Quote:
Ever since public education, the US has been dropping in educational standards. We're now...what, 25th in the world? With our economic power, that's ridiculous. Privitization mean competition - which increases quality and decreases price. With privitized education("public" education is NOT free education), we would be getting BETTER education for LESS money - and it would be getting better and cheaper all the time.
U.S. education standards are dropping horrendously because we throw away all our capital preparing students for worthless assessment tests that serve as worthless identifiers of how well the student does on the worthless assessment test. Not only are these assessments a waste of time and money, and not only do they cause teachers to waste valuable class time preparing students for the worthless tests that could be spent teaching the students things they're actually going to use in real life, but the implementation is ass-backwards. Instead of getting more money when its students are struggling, a school gets less money, which means those schools' already poor standards are going to go even further into the gutter, further dragging the national average down.
Instead of throwing so much public cash into the developmental black hole of achievement testing, the government should be sending all that money straight into the pocketbooks of teachers, which would incite more and better people to enter the profession. Getting rid of the equally worthless education major, which teaches people how to teach out of a textbook instead of the actual knowledge they'll be teaching their students, would eliminate a major that attracts some of the poorest students in college, and also eliminate the source of the ridiculous "education majors are more desirable than majors in their area of expertise" bias which plagues our institutions for now. I've ranted about this for pages elsewhere, go here for something three years old and here for something more current.
WTF I agree with War Angel. =o
This is a great thing...putting all the potential problems like people not being able to afford it and such aside, it's a breakthrough, it's a step, and it's not a loss at all (other than financial losses to develop it perhaps). Hopefully there can be some sort of way to get it to more people than just those with tons of money.
The 18th amendment also outlaws the sale of alcohol...that doesn't mean it's a great thing.Quote:
The Tenth Amendment does not say that the government has no power to tax its citizens, because the Sixteenth Amendment expressly gives the government the power to levy an income tax.
How can I have the right to my life if the government has a continual claim on it? It's contrary to any definition of freedom.
Oh yes, so the approval of the Patriot Act is also just, by that logic. As were the Sedition Acts of 1800 and 1920.Quote:
And the government isn't taking whatever it wants, whenever it wants. Elected representatives are carrying out the will of the people they represent taking the amount of money the masses want them to take. It's the will of the people because they had to vote to approve the Sixteenth Amendment to be passed for it to become a part of the constitution.
Where are you pulling this from?Quote:
That would sustain it for a few years, not indefinitely. After that time period expires, what would you propose?
It's communism, by any definition. Socialism is window-dressed communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." It forfeits the right of the individual, forfeits freedom, and forfeits any claim to benefit the "common good." What is the common good? What is the public?Quote:
I fail to see how giving people's tax money to people who can't afford to do things necessary to subsist equates to communism. I suppose you can loosely term welfare a form of socialism if you're using the American Conservative definition of socialism, but just because the government employs a socialist program to give people the right to life it explicitly guarantees its citizens doesn't make it a socialist government. A socialist government would be one which took away all income its citizens earned and redistributed it equally amongst all of its citizens.
Then they earn it, or go without.Quote:
But it would still cost poor people money that they didn't have.
First off, I don't agree with public education or welfare. How can the government force me to finance something that I don't agree with and that doesn't benefit me?
Partially, but why were the assesment tests made in the first place?Quote:
U.S. education standards are dropping horrendously because we throw away all our capital preparing students for worthless assessment tests that serve as worthless identifiers of how well the student does on the worthless assessment test. Not only are these assessments a waste of time and money, and not only do they cause teachers to waste valuable class time preparing students for the worthless tests that could be spent teaching the students things they're actually going to use in real life, but the implementation is ass-backwards. Instead of getting more money when its students are struggling, a school gets less money, which means those schools' already poor standards are going to go even further into the gutter, further dragging the national average down.
Or just privatize schools entirely, which would cut taxes dramatically and make schools competitive, which means prices would drop, teacher salaries would increase, and education quality would increase.Quote:
Instead of throwing so much public cash into the developmental black hole of achievement testing, the government should be sending all that money straight into the pocketbooks of teachers, which would incite more and better people to enter the profession. Getting rid of the equally worthless education major, which teaches people how to teach out of a textbook instead of the actual knowledge they'll be teaching their students, would eliminate a major that attracts some of the poorest students in college, and also eliminate the source of the ridiculous "education majors are more desirable than majors in their area of expertise" bias which plagues our institutions for now. I've ranted about this for pages elsewhere, go here for something three years old and here for something more current.
You know what? Since no one can pay for the drugs, then let's just not make them at all, and let everyone rich or poor or who gives a damn anyways let them all die because some dick-ass politician misrepresenting the ghetto or some stick-up-his-ass fake-righteous bastard thinking he cares about the poor needs to get re-elected.
The government doesn't have a continual claim on your life. Life does not equal property, despite what you continue to say without any justification or proof whatsoever (I've been asking you for the last five posts to explain your reasoning on this, and you haven't given me anything more than rhetoric).Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
The Eighteenth Amendment has been repealed. It was an evil, but the people voted it in, and the U.S. is a democracy, so by the U.S.'s own standards, it should have been enacted. Don't like it, don't live in a democracy.Quote:
The 18th amendment also outlaws the sale of alcohol...that doesn't mean it's a great thing.
And, you were the one who brought up the tenth amendment as justification for saying that the government could not tax people, so it's a bit strange for you to go criticizing the Constitution now.
An amendment, which is voted on by the people, is hardly the same thing as a law, which is not. I agree that some laws the U.S. government has passed should not have been, but I deal with this by not voting for the people who pass them, and by writing letters to my senators and representatives asking them not to pass bills I don't approve of.Quote:
Oh yes, so the approval of the Patriot Act is also just, by that logic. As were the Sedition Acts of 1800 and 1920.
Simple logic. The funds have to run out sometime.Quote:
Where are you pulling this from?
Wait, so any redistribution of wealth at all now equates to the Soviet Union? 'Kay.Quote:
It's communism, by any definition. Socialism is window-dressed communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." It forfeits the right of the individual, forfeits freedom, and forfeits any claim to benefit the "common good." What is the common good? What is the public?
Many poor people are poor because they cannot find a job. Do these people deserve no education? That will simply continue the cycle of poverty. If they have no education, they cannot find jobs that actually earn them enough money to pay for an education because they have no education. Or, in many cases, they simply can't find jobs. Isn't that ridiculously inefficient?Quote:
Then they earn it, or go without.
Because of the Sixteenth Amendment. Don't like it, go to a country that doesn't have income tax. You live in a democracy, and it's the will of the people that there be a federal income tax. Don't like it, don't live in a democracy.Quote:
First off, I don't agree with public education or welfare. How can the government force me to finance something that I don't agree with and that doesn't benefit me?
Because people like Jeb Bush were elected into office.Quote:
Partially, but why were the assesment tests made in the first place?
I see no evidence of any of that. Usually, when things are privatized, they become more expensive because if a corporation can get more money, they'll ask for more money. That's even accepting your premises, which I do not because you have no statistics to back them up.Quote:
Or just privatize schools entirely, which would cut taxes dramatically and make schools competitive, which means prices would drop, teacher salaries would increase, and education quality would increase.
I haven't been paying attention to all of this, but I want to comment on this.
As far as I know, you're talking about taxation and money. I must say that money isn't "life" of any sort. Therefore, the government can take your money and you still have your "right to life".Quote:
How can I have the right to my life if the government has a continual claim on it? It's contrary to any definition of freedom.
Then you've been completely missing his point for the past five posts, I guess. It seems clear to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
We have the right to life, you're saying, but not the right to own our property. No one is claiming that a car is my life. But it's the product - product - of my life. Under your idea, the ideas are completely seperate, which means that the government can't kill me, but it can rob me blind because it's just the product of my hard work, that's all.
Or, that the government only can take away certain things. As if that makes it right.
How? If the government can strip me of everything I do - how do I have freedom, the right to my own life? You're suggesting that the government can take away all of my possesions - but since I'm still breathing, I still have my right to life. You're equating "having a pulse" as the only prerequisite for having the "right to life." I consider choice, i.e., freedom to be the sole prerequisite for the right to live your own life.Quote:
I must say that money isn't "life" of any sort. Therefore, the government can take your money and you still have your "right to life".
Neither of you have yet indicated how the government is to function in the long run if it doesn't take things from people. Because it takes money to run a government. I'm not saying the government can take anything it wants, I'm saying the government can take as much as is necessary for it to fulfill its duties. No more. Hell, at the moment it isn't even doing *that,* it's running up the budget deficit to ridiculous amounts which is only going to end up passing the problem to our children and grandchildren, and you're still complaining about it.
And you're still equating "my life" with "the product of my life," without explaining how the two are one and the same. You're still allowed to live and do whatever you want, it's just that you're not going to keep 100% of everything you earn. It's not complete freedom, no, but it's the price you pay for living in a society that has a government that actually does things for its people. It sounds to me like you just don't want to give anything you earn away to anyone and for that you'd let some starving kid in the street die. Well, if you want to live in a country like that, it's not going to be the U.S. The U.S. is a democracy, and an overwhelming majority of its populace believes it is criminally negligent for the government to allow innocent people to die on its watch.
I don't know about him, but I don't mind being taxed enough for a government to perform it's only duty (protection of individual rights).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
And, at the moment, we aren't allowed to keep a whole hell of a lot because the governmental "duties" are getting to be a bit too much. Enough so that they aren't taxing us enough currently. And that's sad.
I think that the starving kid should be able and willing to get help, but I don't think that a government should take away fifteen percent of each paycheck earned for it.
of course it shouldn't. I agree as well that government is way too smurfing large right now. We spend far more on the military than should be necessary for defending the country (but that's mostly because we're in a war that was completely unnecessary in the first place), we have a space program (which is something that should be left completely to the private sector), and a bunch of other things I could rant on about. However, I think life is more important than property, and anything that allows people to go on living is worth spending taxpayers' money on. Which basically means that, in my estimation people should be guaranteed food, shelter, and health care. Any more than that is going overboard, though.
edit: actually, the idea of a guaranteed minimum income is a reasonably good idea, since it would eliminate the necessity for minimum wage and a whole bunch of other stuff. But that's a debate for another thread.
For the same reason you recognize that the space program should be the private sector, I think that food, shelter and health care should be left to the private sector, as well.
Why? Food and shelter are necessary for life, and to a lesser extent, especially as one ages, so is health care.
Because the government is never good with anything except what it's there to perform.
Because food is already private and working fine. Because people (or companies, etc) can build houses faster and better than the government could and could sell them for less money (rather than a flat rate or god knows what the government would do). And because health care would be better, easier to get a hold of (no two-year waiting lists) and production of medicines would skyrocket.
I could also say that the Constitution never gave the government the right, but that's only a semi-argument. I could also bring up moral reasons: because socializing health care and whatnot is not exactly free.
of course it's not free. It never is. If everyone has to pay for it themselves, the people who can't afford it will starve/die of sickness. Seems to me that since life is guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence, it should be the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone has that right.
If it's left to the private sector, what guarantee is there that everyone will be able to feed themselves and afford health care?
Just thought I'd poke in to quote the preamble of the US Constitution. Bold mine.
Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
My general remark goes to the "if the government can do a little of [whatever] then it can do [whatever] all the way", which is bs at multiple levels. First, from a legal standpoint, you can put checks and balances and limit what the govenment can do. For example, it can pass laws, but does it mean it can pass any law it wants? Nope. Similarly, you can define how much it's allowed to tax, or how much or in what very specific conditions it can take something from you. Second, from a logical standpoint: by that reasoning, if I can jump over a fence, I can jump over a house. I wish, but again, there are limits on how high I can jump.
And last, I find it funny that you are in favor of patents (20 (/14) year long monopolies anyone?) and at the same time say "free market". Haha. xD
life is not proprty asnd tax is not 100%, so it does not strip you of all you have earned. it takes some. and at some point you will probably use some of it. maybe not all you've put in. maybe not as much as some people. but you will use it. i know for sure it will take a whole long time before i could ever dream of paying back my schooling, operations, prescriptions, glasses, dentistry, water, uni stuff.
think of it like a lottery. you don't know at any one time how much you will take out. raistlin tomorrow you may contract hep c. or aids. or kidney disease. and if you don't have enough to pay for the treatment. you are well and truly stuffed. but if you were getting treatment under the nhs then you would be fine. they would treat you. they wouldn't bankrupt you for it.
why let the poor die for being poor? is that a justification? if we have the power to stop death should we not? and why can it not be the responsibilty of the state and it's people not to watch people die from this? what gives the rich a right to life above the poor?
Perhaps the government should guarantee employment instead of guarantee income? Welfare is a free ride. I've never agreed with the concept. I believe during the Great Depression, one of the plans put into effect essentially gave manual labor jobs to thousands of men building roads and other tasks. Welfare and unemployment encourage laziness. I know this first hand because I'm currently laid off, and unemployment is making me lazy. There are roads that need to be maintained. There's litter that can be picked up. I'm sure there are government offices that could use secretarial positions. There are tons of ways the government could put the nonproductive to work. The end result would be the same: noone would starve in poverty. The difference would be that money is earned, and noone loses. As welfare currently stands, those who do work give part of their income to those who don't. It's a win-lose situation. Guarantee people jobs instead of income, and society would be more productive.
true but we cannot go back to the work house situation that we had before.
and a line has to be drawn somewhere for people actually unable to work.
but yeah government paid jobs i am all for really. but then it would need to be paid for by taxes. and people would only whine.
Oh, whining for no reason at all, I'm sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9