• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

Do you own yourself (self ownership)? Should or shouldnt you own yourself?

  • Yes (should)

    Votes: 32 76.2%

  • Yes (shouldn't)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No (should)

    Votes: 3 7.1%

  • No (shouldn't)

    Votes: 7 16.7%
  • Total voters
    42
RGacky3 said:
Ok, but you cannot argue that a private system is better than.
Click to expand...

Of course you can. Having a good health care system does not require socialization of health care.

RGacky3 said:
All of those things restrict personal freedom, socialized medicine does now, infact it expands it.
Click to expand...

How exactly does compelling participation not restrict personal freedom? And 'freedom' you might gain will be at the expense of others.
 
Cephus said:
Go shoot someone. Tell the responding officers you have not consented to be held accountable under the law. See where that gets you.
Click to expand...

Cool story :roll: Actions of force bring reactions of force. I can't see that has to do with consent.

Society also found it acceptable to enslave black people. But they consented, so its OK.
 
Last edited:
RGacky3 said:
Yeah it does, look at the statistics of which countries pay more for healthcare with what results.
Click to expand...

Hatuey said:
cost_longlife75.gif


Though one could argue that the standard of healthcare given by these countries may not be the same, I seriously doubt Scandinavian countries have institutions with low standards. This chart lays out life expectancy vs. cost of health care per person.
Click to expand...

Two people fall into the same correlation/causation trap at the same time...


Forcing payment for an unfairly highly priced item in effect rewards whoever is pricing it that way. If a bunch of you pay for me to have a nicer house, it didn't make the house more affordable. It remains just as unaffordable and simply shifts the burden for its unaffordability elsewhere. So again, no, spreading insane costs around doesn't make them sane. The same cost is incurred, the same high priced item gets purchased, and so it goes.
 
Last edited:
Aberration said:
Cool story :roll: Actions of force bring reactions of force. I can't see that has to do with consent.

Society also found it acceptable to enslave black people. But they consented, so its OK.
Click to expand...

You accept the consequences just by being here. You cannot opt out of those consequences. The only way not to suffer those consequences is to leave the society. The same thing was true, long ago, of slavery. Where slavery was legal, you could not opt out of it. Blacks were, almost without exception, slaves in those areas. The only way not to be a slave was to leave that particular society and head north.

You're bound by the dictates of the society you live in whether you like it or not.
 
MoSurveyor said:
There's no proof of that.
Click to expand...

Good is relative.

But there is proof that poor people today have better health care then the wealthiest people had 30 short years ago.

This proves to me that health care does not require socialization to see advancements.
 
ARealConservative said:
Good is relative.

But there is proof that poor people today have better health care then the wealthiest people had 30 short years ago.

This proves to me that health care does not require socialization to see advancements.
Click to expand...
Like the government doesn't contribute to health care in America??? :lol: That's even funnier than the last statement!

The Right is constantly bitching about the amount of money going to the poor each year, a good chunk of which is medical care.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Like the government doesn't contribute to health care in America??? :lol: That's even funnier than your last statement!
Click to expand...

I’ve been told over and over that the system we practice today is not socialism.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Neither is the one being decided by SCOTUS. What's your point?
Click to expand...

my point is we have proof that a good health care system can exist without socialization.

maybe if you reread our exchange, you might grasp it a second time.
 
ARealConservative said:
my point is we have proof that a good health care system can exist without socialization.

maybe if you reread our exchange, you might grasp it a second time.
Click to expand...
Where does this proof exist?
 
Cephus said:
You accept the consequences just by being here. You cannot opt out of those consequences. The only way not to suffer those consequences is to leave the society. The same thing was true, long ago, of slavery. Where slavery was legal, you could not opt out of it. Blacks were, almost without exception, slaves in those areas. The only way not to be a slave was to leave that particular society and head north.

You're bound by the dictates of the society you live in whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

That does not make it consent. It is force, plain and simple.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, that has little actual bearing on whether or not 1 person can assist another in suicide. It's about the role of the state in regard to a person's life. If I "own" my body, given the definition given here - I should by definition be able to entrust it to those I see fit after I am no longer able to hold my own faculties. With that said, a law banning assisted suicide WOULD infringe on my ability to do as a please with my body as long as I am not affecting anyone.
Click to expand...
But the people you want to entrust your rights to...also have rights and may not recognize your right to assisted suicide. A ban on assisted suicide would likely apply more to those who might assist in the suicide than it would to the person wanting to die. So perhaps the only way for suicide to truly be a self right is to exercise the right to die yourself....otherwise, I don't see how it can be a self right, especially if it depends on infringing on the self rights of others to do it.

Since suicide is against the law of nature then it stands to reason that it's probably not a natural right and if it's not a natural right, then it's not a self right either. Natural rights are "self evident."
 
Aberration said:
No. Contracts are for explicit consent.
Click to expand...
The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. Consent of the governed is a social contract. By freely obeying the laws you are explicitly consenting to the social contract in which you live.
 
Well, gee, I certainly hope I own myself. If not I'd need the perp's name and address so I can take care of business.

Obviously we own ourselves, seeing as we typically have control of own bodies, and decisions.

But I suppose if we want to go the Matrix route we could always call up Morpheus for some red pills.
 
ARealConservative said:
my point is we have proof that a good health care system can exist without socialization.

maybe if you reread our exchange, you might grasp it a second time.
Click to expand...
You said it yourself - good is relative.

I haven't seen what I call a 'good' health care system in the US, yet.
 
Tell that to society, which is defining laws that control all of that.
Click to expand...

I do.

Two people fall into the same correlation/causation trap at the same time...
Click to expand...

Except we have both corrolation and we can explain the causation ...

Forcing payment for an unfairly highly priced item in effect rewards whoever is pricing it that way. If a bunch of you pay for me to have a nicer house, it didn't make the house more affordable. It remains just as unaffordable and simply shifts the burden for its unaffordability elsewhere. So again, no, spreading insane costs around doesn't make them sane. The same cost is incurred, the same high priced item gets purchased, and so it goes.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but making that commodity a not for profit production, and making it a socailly controlled industry rather than private DOES lower cost.

Of course you can. Having a good health care system does not require socialization of health care.
Click to expand...

Well, it certainly seams that way, the only country that has not socialized with good results is switzerland, who ban profits for private industry, i.e. they must all be non profits.

How exactly does compelling participation not restrict personal freedom? And 'freedom' you might gain will be at the expense of others.
Click to expand...

Because

A: I'm not talking about a mandate
B: it expands personal freedom becasue you are not beholdant to private industry for your life
C: it frees you from financial worries about healthcare
D: Socialization gies you a say over the healthcare industry that you and everyone needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom