Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Jul 1999 19:31:09 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@AVOIDSPAMcclabs.missouri.edu
|
Viewed:
|
864 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Dee wrote:
>
> I do not have these federalist papers to which you refer, so
> must trust your *interpretation* of them. Assuming a copy
> exists on the 'net, I shall read them. (Open invitation for
> someone to e-mail me a copy of them, text-format, zipped, blah, blah).
Careful what you agree to. They're a serious read.
> Until then, the framework to enable pursuit of hapiness, then.
> It is all too easy to just define *everything* as a good, &
No, only things that require resources to acquire.
> that there is no commitment for anything to be provided. You
And that's how it should be.
> should therefore be opposed to government-funded and -run
> innoculation programs, which have helped to protect *your*
> children from many diseases, as well as others'. And by
I'm with Larry, they should be done away with. My kid was inoculated on
the dime of my employer, not some welfare program.
> innoculating the masses, have further helped to protect
> your children.
And, inoculation helps individuals at the expense of the species. We
get more and more dependent on such things as time progresses. Let's
just hope society never does collapse and leave us at the mercy of these pathogens.
> (I can be quite sure, however, that as
> it is government-run, that there are almost certainly
> inefficiencies and unnecessary bureaucracy and wasteage).
Given that, why would you promote it?
> This is possibly the best example I can come up with,
> supporting the notion of framework for protecting life.
Cool. I guess we "win" then.
> (I still have yet to be convinced that the paranoia
> exhibited by many on this forum, that the current US
> government's only agenda is to kill you all, in order
> to steal everything, as anything but hysteria).
No one thinks that. I may be the most vociferous in this regard though.
'The government' doesn't want to kill anyone in particular.
Representitives of the government sometimes (given too much power to do
so) make immoral decisions and do choose to kill citizens. Ask David
Koresh, Randy Weaver, and others.
> By protecting the children from disease, you are providing
> the opportunity for life. Or would you leave that, too, to
> ability to pay and merit of position? (Class-based, non-
> democratic, etc.) --
Sure. And people with money, wanting the infrastructure that makes them
wealthy to stick around, would choose to privately fund inoculation programs.
> _____________________________________________________________
> richard.dee@nospam.virgin.net remove nospam.(lugnet excepted)
> Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.dee/lego.html
> ICQ 13177071 AOL Instant Messenger: RJD88888
> _____________________________________________________________
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
