A Stupid Statements About Single Payer Healthcare

[Amarok]

Awhile back i got into an argument about healthcare my opponent was a right winger who essentially argued .

1. It can't be theft if it's legal theft by definition is an illegal act 

It is only fair when you get from government what you give to government. Tax rates should be regressive. Forcing rich to give free stuff to lazy poor is definition of theft.

Nope taxation is not theft regardless of who it goes too . Your definition of fairness is warped as is your ideal of government .

---

It's a universal truth that laziness rises proportionately with wealth. Poor people have to scrabble and struggle every hour of the day to survive.  All rich people have to do to live in luxury is snap their fingers, they employ people (nearly always at shit wages) to do the work.

That's a lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_av..._countries
Workers in socialist european countries barely work while rich people have to work hard for their businesses to be profitable.

Socialist European countries 

No such thing 

And this Wikipedia does not back your talking points

---

1. It can't be theft if it's legal theft by definition is an illegal act 

All right are invented there are no natural rights 

By that logic forcing soldiers to fight for the government is wrong

What are you saying? It is impossible for the government to commit theft if it legislates that theft?

"All rights are invented there are no natural rights" <<what?!!

This is why I said on my thread "Am I an anarchist?" that atheists are prone to statism and authoritarianism

You believe that human rights are derived from the state

Forcing soldiers to fight for the government is wrong

If theft is a legal concept and taxation is a legal structure then no 

It's not statism to not give into civic mysticism 

Of course states decide human rights

Your confusing volunteering. Wanting to be a solider  and having too work for a particular organization to achieve that. Unless you like the idea of private armies .

Anarchism is a pipe dream

---

In practice, that’s pretty much it. Note, this does not mean we think human rights should be dispensed with (most of us appreciate them very much), and to assume so is to fall victim to the Naturalistic Fallacy. That said, if an oppressive force is stomping your head into the dust, and the powers that be are okay with it, well, you can say you have rights, but they won’t mean a damn thing. And, as I’ve said numerous times before on this forum: Why, yes, that does suck.

Which is why the “court-appointed attorney” example others gave is a better example than conscription. After all, it’s been 73 years since we’ve actually fought an enemy with both the will and ability to actually be a threat to us.

Can a court-appointed attorney work for a private firm simultaneously?

Can a doctor under a singer payer system open a private clinic or work for a private insurance company?

Also, do you agree people are justified in launching an armed insurrection against a state that violates their human rights?

None of these address Tibs point