A Stupid Statements About Single Payer Healthcare

[Deesse23]

...socialist european countries ...

...and those would be?

[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

[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 government is not a pay to play system and rich people signed the social if they don'r societies they can always move . Society isn't about pandering to them .

---

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

Anarchism can only end in the authoritarianism of mob rule . Without an institution given the legal or moral authority to exercise rights they are but abstract concepts with all the clout of fairies and spirits .

[GUBU]

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.

You haven't a fucking clue even how to make an argument.

You know those "socialist european [sic] countries" with the "lazy workers", they are the richest countries in the world, in large part due to the workers you so shamelessly denigrate.

As one of those lazy people you give out about, I can guarantee you that I've done more work in one day this week than you, Donald Trump and Denis O'Brien will do in your lives combined.

[Amarok]

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.

You haven't a fucking clue even how to make an argument.

You know those "socialist european [sic] countries" with the "lazy workers", they are the richest countries in the world, in large part due to the workers you so shamelessly denigrate.

As one of those lazy people you give out about, I can guarantee you that I've done more work in one day this week than you, Donald Trump and Denis O'Brien will do in your lives combined.

Indeed the rich are only rich because of workers

[Dmitry1983]

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 government is not a pay to play system and rich people signed the social if they don'r societies they can always move .

Why don't you move?

---

You know those "socialist european [sic] countries" with the "lazy workers", they are the richest countries in the world, in large part due to the workers you so shamelessly denigrate.

They are only rich because rich people made them rich. Only thing that workers can do is voting to take money from rich.

---

You haven't a fucking clue even how to make an argument.

You know those "socialist european [sic] countries" with the "lazy workers", they are the richest countries in the world, in large part due to the workers you so shamelessly denigrate.

As one of those lazy people you give out about, I can guarantee you that I've done more work in one day this week than you, Donald Trump and Denis O'Brien will do in your lives combined.

Indeed the rich are only rich because of workers

You don't need workers in age of automation. That's why governments in developed countries actively use monetary and fiscal policy to create jobs for useless people.

[Amarok]

Why don't you move?

Red herring and don't need to i'm fine being taxed and obeying the contract

They are only rich because rich people made them rich. Only thing that workers can do is voting to take money from rich.

Nope those people only rich because workers made them rich all the way down the line to the very beginning of wealth itself And workers do everything the rich simply exploit their labor and their lives in the name of opulence and greed .

You don't need workers in age of automation. That's why governments in developed countries actively use monetary and fiscal policy to create jobs for useless people.

Yes you do need workers in the age of automation it will only create the need for more workers . Nope workers are still needed and there is no such thing as useless people as people are not defined by their use . People are not tools or commodities.

[Dmitry1983]

You don't need workers in age of automation. That's why governments in developed countries actively use monetary and fiscal policy to create jobs for useless people.

Yes you do need workers in the age of automation it will only create the need for more workers . Nope workers are still needed and there is no such thing as useless people as people are not defined by their use . People are not tools or commodities.

I suggest you learn macroeconomics

[Deesse23]

Rich countries got rich because rich people made them rich

[Amarok]

Yes you do need workers in the age of automation it will only create the need for more workers . Nope workers are still needed and there is no such thing as useless people as people are not defined by their use . People are not tools or commodities.

I suggest you learn macroeconomics

I understand it well and automation will not end the need for workers and i don't define civilization or human beings by macroeconomics. Sad you do .

---

Rich countries got rich because rich people made them rich

Rich countries are built by the poor by their blood and broken backs while the rich feast profit like vultures .