In theory we all vote to make sure health care is free for all. But you actually are voting to enslave health care professionals, nurses, doctors. Now they work for us, and they do as they are told, or we do not let them practice. And if you don't let them practice, you do not have ENOUGH doctors. We just voted to make nutritional food a human right. THAT requires the labor of a lot of other people.
When I hear one of you say housing is a human right, (i.e. shav and marauder) , that means the home builder no longer labors on his own behalf, ,,,,,he is now a slave......he must deliver on this promise from the government of a human right. How could one human have the right to the labor of another human being in a just society? How does that happen? How does the labor of one person become automatically owned and the property of another in a just society?????
This concept is beyond the understanding of every liberal on this Forum.
When the political class promises everyone a generous gift greater than the collection of the Treasury, the society eventually collapses under its own weight.
Mamdani is saying for your loyalty, you will get something for free. This is a fact.....Over half of the NYC budget is paid by TWO PERCENT of the population. If they leave, NYC does not have that money. How does Mamdani deliver. The vote does not manifest all the free stuff, you see.
Now you see.
Does anyone have a rebuttal to these facts, the real picture? Even Mamdani laughed off the old adage 'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money". He laughed...He LAUGHED. You gonna follow a silly goose?
@AverageJoe1 saidFormer Soviet Union cried. East Germany cried
'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money". He laughed...He LAUGHED.
North Korea is crying. Cuba is crying
Venezuela only just stopped crying.
Before the DSA crowd comes in with their nonsense about the Nordic states being socialist, let me post this from Perplexity:
**************************
Scandinavian governments and many Scandinavian political leaders object to being labeled socialist in the way Democratic Socialists of America [DSA] uses the term. Denmark’s then-prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen explicitly said Denmark is “far from a socialist planned economy” and called it “a market economy.”
Why they object
The main complaint is definitional: Nordic leaders often say their countries are market economies with large welfare states, not socialist systems built on public ownership of the means of production. Rasmussen’s comments made that distinction directly, saying he did not view the Nordic model as socialism.
*************************************
@AverageJoe1 said - This concept is beyond the understanding of every liberal on this Forum.
--------------------
Truer words...
@AverageJoe1
AJoe,
As long as bigov steals people's earnings, they surely may not have to enslave the medical comminity
@Earl-of-Trumps said? Why speak in riddles. Get it out.
@AverageJoe1
AJoe,
As long as bigov steals people's earnings, they surely may not have to enslave the medical comminity
@Earl-of-Trumps saidCome on, Earl, you're better than this. Everyone here understands the capitalist principle, just as everyone should understand that to use the word 'slavery' in this context is meaningless. One could equally be said to be a 'slave' to the capitalist system, and to rampant consumerism, and the 'need' to make more money. The term is inappropriate in either context. If people weren't buying stuff they didn't need, capitalism would collapse like a pack of cards.
@AverageJoe1 said - This concept is beyond the understanding of every liberal on this Forum.
--------------------
Truer words...
Taxation may be regarded as 'evil', but it's a necessary evil. Education, at least to a certain level, has to be free, as does health care, for the good of 'society' as a whole; no man is an island. Beyond that it becomes political, and complex, and dependant upon how one sees the world, and it's all about balance. The welfare system in the UK, for example, is out of control, and needs to be reigned in; generosity is dependent upon the amount of money one has to be generous with, but the basics have to be covered.
One has to find the middle - ground, it's the only place that works, pragmatically speaking, all else leads to disaster, and even liberals understand this well enough.
@AverageJoe1 saidThat's a riddle? I think it's perfectly clear.
? Why speak in riddles. Get it out.
Bigov purchases medicines and pays for medical care/services. The doctors aren't slaves, the taxpayers are
@AverageJoe1 saidNow this is insane.
Not one person address the concept that free health care in effect enslaves everyone in a medical profession.
An interesting topic for a debate. Does it enslave them or not? The government would own their work product.
@AverageJoe1 saidYeah, laughable.
In theory we all vote to make sure health care is free for all. But you actually are voting to enslave health care professionals, nurses, doctors. Now they work for us, and they do as they are told, or we do not let them practice. And if you don't let them practice, you do not have ENOUGH doctors. We just voted to make nutritional food a human right. THAT requires t ...[text shortened]... entually run out of other peoples' money". He laughed...He LAUGHED. You gonna follow a silly goose?
Just what I was thinking.
@Earl-of-Trumps saidNo. Just no.
Suzi,
You do not think that forced taxation is slavery, so I wouldn't expect you to get it.
Taxation without representation is slavery. And tyranny.
Have you read the Declaration of Independence lately?
@Indonesia-Phil saidThe basics have to be covered? WE (?) have to find middle ground? Is that you Mandami.
Come on, Earl, you're better than this. Everyone here understands the capitalist principle, just as everyone should understand that to use the word 'slavery' in this context is meaningless. One could equally be said to be a 'slave' to the capitalist system, and to rampant consumerism, and the 'need' to make more money. The term is inappropriate in either context. If pe ...[text shortened]... , pragmatically speaking, all else leads to disaster, and even liberals understand this well enough.
I tell you what. Be a big guy, don't speak in fluff. PLEASE respond directly to the OP/, Yo DO realilze that you wne off on a tangent here.
"rampant consumerism', and 'need to make more money'. Are these bad things? I want another car (rampant consumerism) and yes, I want to make more money. Tell us who does NOT want to make more money. Spare me having to do an analogy?
Yes if people did not buy stuff they do not need, capitalism would be looking for buyers. Your point? Jesus.
Taxation may be ragarded as evil??? NO, it is regarded as necessary for society.
Taxation is not evil. Jesus again. We all pool certain money (tax) to pay for community projects, education, police, hospitals.Then, we all go off to work to 'make more money' Phil. Yeah, regarded as evil, I reckon. With that money, we pay utilities, car insurance, Home insurance, and oh yeah,,,,,,health insurance!!!!11. There are over 1000 health insurance companies vying for your business
No need to type more. But will be glad to, if you tell us what you mean by Middle Ground. What in the hell!?!!?!??
But then you say health care "Has to be free." Did you read my OP. How in the hell can that happen? Govt owns doctors to give everyone health care??? You support that , do you? DO you? No, you do not.
One has to find rhe middle ground? Surely you don't want another analogy.l