Would you go to US medical school if money was no issue?

[rmorelan]

oh and this concept of "Robbing" implies a zero sum economic model. We don't live in a zero sum economic model though - wealth actually has the capacity to be created.

 

I have to draw again into the basic point of any economic system is to achieve some measure of utility (utility in the economics sense of the word, basically happiness) of a society. It is not to DIRECTLY maximize GDP, manage capital flows, or anything along those lines. We reallocate capital, set up inefficiencies, and disproportionately tax because collectively we feel the goals of utility are more optimally met that way. Of course those moves impact negatively some people at least to a degree. It is about keeping the eye on the end goal - which is not universal freedom. There isn't a government in the world that is for that. It is about some form of balance between individual freedoms and collective benefit.

[Teflon Don]

Obviously not.. but the segment of society that will be able to access medical training will be much more limited to those who can afford it.

 

20k+ per year in tuition/books plus living expenses is already pretty hard to soak up. If you want to know what the real cost of education is today, look at what international students pay. In the US that's anywhere between 40-85k per year, WITHOUT living expenses.

 

 

This is an incredibly narrow perspective. People are more free to spend as they wish because there is an understanding that if they become sick that healthcare will be there for them. Yes.. even if what they can spend is slightly less because of higher taxation.

 

if government stopped guaranteeing student loans the cost of education would go down drastically. the real cost of education is nowhere near the prices you suggest. technology has improved drastically, we can now educate and share knowledge much more efficiently with the help of the internet and other advancements in communication. This should be driving prices down but government guaranteed loans and subsidies are giving students the means to outbid each for limited spots with the taxpayer bearing the liability for decades to come.

 

and your last paragraph made no sense at all. people are more free to spend as they wish so long as they pay massive amounts in taxes towards an inefficient and unnecessarily costly government run program? why cant they keep their money and buy health insurance or negotiate payment contracts with hospitals that allow them to pay over time? what if they don't feel they require medical services? should they not have the right to refuse to pay into a system they will not be using?

[A-Stark]

So in other words you don't have any particular solutions, just "Because the Internet!!!"

[TheBoss]

oh and this concept of "Robbing" implies a zero sum economic model. We don't live in a zero sum economic model though - wealth actually has the capacity to be created.

 

I have to draw again into the basic point of any economic system is to achieve some measure of utility (utility in the economics sense of the word, basically happiness) of a society. It is not to DIRECTLY maximize GPA, manage capital flows, or anything along those lines. We reallocate capital, set up inefficiencies, and disproportionately tax because collectively we feel the goals of utility are more optimally met that way. Of course those moves impact negatively some people at least to a degree. It is about keeping the eye on the end goal - which is not universal freedom. There isn't a government in the world that is for that. It is about some form of balance between individual freedoms and collective benefit.

 

One aspect of it all is that things like money and grades have no intrinsic value of their own, they're really just tools we use so that the system can create and distribute wealth. Heck, as a society we could print as much money as we want, or we could give everybody As even if they didn't show up, but it wouldn't do us any good.

[Teflon Don]

oh and this concept of "Robbing" implies a zero sum economic model. We don't live in a zero sum economic model though - wealth actually has the capacity to be created

 

i don't believe in a zero sum game either (in fact that is a socialist belief that drives them to yell and cry about how workers are being exploited and abused by employers) but when you forcibly confiscate wealth in an involuntary transaction then you are obviously engaging in theft. in a free market economy every voluntary transaction is made between two parties who each feel that they are benefiting from the transaction. this is vastly different than a socialist system where government bureaucrats who have only ever spent other peoples money get together and decide whats in the best interest of the person who earned that money in the first place.

 

 

I have to draw again into the basic point of any economic system is to achieve some measure of utility (utility in the economics sense of the word, basically happiness) of a society. It is not to DIRECTLY maximize GPA, manage capital flows, or anything along those lines. We reallocate capital, set up inefficiencies, and disproportionately tax because collectively we feel the goals of utility are more optimally met that way. Of course those moves impact negatively some people at least to a degree. It is about keeping the eye on the end goal - which is not universal freedom. There isn't a government in the world that is for that. It is about some form of balance between individual freedoms and collective benefit.

 

 

not only has socialism proven to be a failure but it is also absolutely immoral.

[JohnDakota]

if government stopped guaranteeing student loans the cost of education would go down drastically.

 

I totally agree. But student loans are the only way certain segments of society can access higher education, even if the costs were lowered. So it's a difficult problem to solve and can't be solved by a simplistic "just turn the faucets off' model.

 

the real cost of education is nowhere near the prices you suggest.

 

Even in industries that are almost entirely unregulated, such as personal training, 'real cost' is as much a function of input costs as it is market forces. You're arguing as if it's only input costs. Medical education is highly competitive with many many more applicants to trainee spaces.

 

technology has improved drastically, we can now educate and share knowledge much more efficiently with the help of the internet and other advancements in communication. This should be driving prices down......

 

Sure.. but are you going to trust anyone who has taken a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)? They're generally pretty good.. I've taken a couple... they cost nothing, but they're also completely unregulated... which means the consistency of education quality across the MOOC spectrum is pretty suspect. At the end of the day, that's what people want - confidence that the person treating them has been trained in what has been determined to be a bonafide and effective program.

 

The technological advancements are promising but they're not bonafide yet.

 

but government guaranteed loans and subsidies are giving students the means to outbid each for limited spots with the taxpayer bearing the liability for decades to come.

 

c'est la vie. But costs going up are much a function of supply-demand imbalance as they are a function of guaranteed loans.

 

and your last paragraph made no sense at all. people are more free to spend as they wish so long as they pay massive amounts in taxes towards an inefficient and unnecessarily costly government run program? why cant they keep their money and buy health insurance or negotiate payment contracts with hospitals that allow them to pay over time? what if they don't feel they require medical services? should they not have the right to refuse to pay into a system they will not be using?

 

welcome to Canada. If you dont' like it, feel free to move south of the boarder and pay the ACA penalty.

 

My last paragraph made perfect sense if you bothered to read the part comparing the ACA costs vs. our taxation. You just want the 'all of the above' option of total economic freedom. If people were given that, our healthcare model would fall apart.

 

Honestly... I used to be of the opinion too before I had experienced something that would be considered a real and serious medical emergency. My dad developed an incredibly aggressive form of leukemia and the lengths the Canadian healthcare community went to to try to save him was remarkable. At that point I realized why it's important to fund a system like ours. In the US, or any other more free market healthcare structure, my father would have been doomed and received no care... not even palliative, which I would argue was the most important.

 

At the end of the day it's about enabling people to exercise their fundamental inalienable rights and making our collective best efforts to ensure people can live with dignity. If you don't believe that....... well .... I dont' really know why you're on this board in the first place. Not that I can't empathize with your position.. it's just I see it as incompatible with a medical doctors lifestyle/motivation.

[Savac]

I haven't read most of the replies, but I just want to answer the original post:

 

YES (considering I've applied down South haha)

[Teflon Don]

I totally agree. But student loans are the only way certain segments of society can access higher education, even if the costs were lowered. So it's a difficult problem to solve and can't be solved by a simplistic "just turn the faucets off' model.

 

 

 

Even in industries that are almost entirely unregulated, such as personal training, 'real cost' is as much a function of input costs as it is market forces. You're arguing as if it's only input costs. Medical education is highly competitive with many many more applicants to trainee spaces.

 

 

 

Sure.. but are you going to trust anyone who has taken a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)? They're generally pretty good.. I've taken a couple... they cost nothing, but they're also completely unregulated... which means the consistency of education quality across the MOOC spectrum is pretty suspect. At the end of the day, that's what people want - confidence that the person treating them has been trained in what has been determined to be a bonafide and effective program.

 

The technological advancements are promising but they're not bonafide yet.

 

 

 

c'est la vie. But costs going up are much a function of supply-demand imbalance as they are a function of guaranteed loans.

 

 

 

welcome to Canada. If you dont' like it, feel free to move south of the boarder and pay the ACA penalty.

 

My last paragraph made perfect sense if you bothered to read the part comparing the ACA costs vs. our taxation. You just want the 'all of the above' option of total economic freedom.

 

Honestly... I used to be of the opinion too. That was until my dad developed an incredibly aggressive form of leukemia and the lengths the Canadian healthcare community went to to try to save him was remarkable. At that point I realized why it's important to fund a system like ours. In the US, or any other more free market healthcare structure, my father would have been doomed and received no care... not even palliative.

 

At the end of the day it's about enabling people to exercise their fundamental inalienable rights and making our collective best efforts to ensure people can live with dignity. If you don't believe that....... well .... I dont' really know why you're on this board in the first place. Not that I can't empathize with your position.. it's just I see it as incompatible with a medical doctors lifestyle/motivation.

 

 

 

sorry about your father but its not my responsibility to provide for his care and you shouldn't be able to force me to do so . perhaps if your fathers income wasn't being raided via the income tax or the value of his savings wasn't being debased by a government policy of inflation and perhaps if there was more competition providing those life saving treatments and driving prices down then your father would have been able to take care of himself.

 

the only inalienable right you have is a right to your life, liberty and property so long as it doesn't interfere with the life, liberty and property of anyone else. and i would be a fool to move to the US, we have more economic freedom in Canada than the Americans have had in decades.

corporatism and fascism is not capitalism.

[rmorelan]

i don't believe in a zero sum game either (in fact that is a socialist belief that drives them to yell and cry about how workers are being exploited and abused by employers) but when you forcibly confiscate wealth in an involuntary transaction then you are obviously engaging in theft. in a free market economy every voluntary transaction is made between two parties who each feel that they are benefiting from the transaction. this is vastly different than a socialist system where government bureaucrats who have only ever spent other peoples money get together and decide whats in the best interest of the person who earned that money in the first place.

 

not only has socialism proven to be a failure but it is also absolutely immoral.

 

So taxes then in any form are a theft? I mean at some point this is where our opinions diverge on core beliefs and that is fine of course

 

It just seems you are a rather extreme from of libertarian (although that like all political terms has different meanings) that I find logically inconsistent with broader societal goals. The problem with libertarianism is it ignore the issues with the tragedy to common effects, and creates issues with long term resource and capital planning. In the end I think no one can succeed without the collective structures in place. What in your mind exactly is the purpose of society?

 

Proven to be a failure? I mean look out a window - what do you see? That is your definition of failure? I have a much bleaker view of what failure really is. We would need to come a standard criteria for success for debate I think.

 

I guess while we are at it you would need to state the axoms of your theory of morality so we can judge the ethical issues with our current system. Absolutely immoral - I guess that is amoral technically - is a rather extreme term I generally reserve for people that take pleasure in grinding up puppies in wood chippers because they like the patters of blood splatter on newly fallen snow (or something similar)

[JohnDakota]

sorry about your father but its not my responsibility to provide for his care and you shouldn't be able to force me to do so . perhaps if your fathers income wasn't being raided via the income tax or the value of his savings wasn't being debased by a government policy of inflation and perhaps if there was more competition providing those life saving treatments and driving prices down then your father would have been able to take care of himself.

 

man... I don't' know if you're a troll or just some heartless gunner unable to empathize with others.

 

Either way - my dad was taken care of just fine..... as I said.

 

the only inalienable right you have is a right to your life, liberty and property so long as it doesn't interfere with the life, liberty and property of anyone else. and i would be a fool to move to the US, we have more economic freedom in Canada than the Americans have had in decades.

corporatism and fascism is not capitalism.

 

lol.. you seriously sound like Rush Limbaugh or some schmuck from Fox News with a repeating soundbite that plays to the audience for applause.

 

Life, liberty, property doesn't mean you're free so long as you're breathing, can speak (ie. vocalize sounds), and own a piece of dirt.. and beyond that government has no business.

 

You may want to spend some time reading our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter mostly documents our fundamental rights as they are assured by virtue of being born, not by being born Canadian. Then spend some time considering what people absolutely need to adequately exercise those rights/freedoms.

 

I find it remarkable that you concede that we are more personally and economically free here in Canada, yet you argue our Healthcare model, which is a cornerstone for our personal and economic freedom, must be completely dismantled and replaced with an everyone-for-themselves policy. This in and of itself demonstrates a severe level of confusion.

[Teflon Don]

So taxes then in any form are a theft? I mean at some point this is where our opinions diverge on core beliefs and that is fine of course

 

It just seems you are a rather extreme from of libertarian (although that like all political terms has different meanings) that I find logically inconsistent with broader societal goals. The problem with libertarianism is it ignore the issues with the tragedy to common effects, and creates issues with long term resource and capital planning. In the end I think no one can succeed without the collective structures in place. What in your mind exactly is the purpose of society?

 

Proven to be a failure? I mean look out a window - what do you see? That is your definition of failure? I have a much bleaker view of what failure really is. We would need to come a standard criteria for success for debate I think.

 

I guess while we are at it you would need to state the axoms of your theory of morality so we can judge the ethical issues with our current system. Absolutely immoral - I guess that is amoral technically - is a rather extreme term I generally reserve for people that take pleasure in grinding up puppies in wood chippers because they like the patters of blood splatter on newly fallen snow (or something similar)

 

we both want a prosperous society that provides the highest standard of living for everyone in the society. we differ in that I believe that a free market with personal responsibility and very minimal government is the only way to ensure this and you believe that massive government , forced redistribution of wealth and involuntary charity is the way to accomplish it. I'm sure you have good intentions but your methodology is seriously flawed and yes absolutely immoral.

[JohnDakota]

I believe that a free market with personal responsibility and very minimal government is the only way to ensure this and you believe that massive government , forced redistribution of wealth and involuntary charity is the way to accomplish it.

 

Presentation of binary solutions to complex societal problems are indicative of a narrow, incomplete understanding of issues.

 

I'm sure you have good intentions but it is my opinion that your methodology is seriously flawed and yes absolutely immoral.

 

Fixed.

[Teflon Don]

man... I don't' know if you're a troll or just some heartless gunner unable to empathize with others.

 

Either way - my dad was taken care of just fine..... as I said.

 

 

 

lol.. you seriously sound like Rush Limbaugh or some schmuck from Fox News with a repeating soundbite that plays to the audience for applause.

 

Life, liberty, property doesn't mean you're free so long as you're breathing, can speak (ie. vocalize sounds), and own a piece of dirt.. and beyond that government has no business.

 

You may want to spend some time reading our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter mostly documents our fundamental rights as they are assured by virtue of being born, not by being born Canadian. Then spend some time considering what people absolutely need to adequately exercise those rights/freedoms.

 

I find it remarkable that you concede that we are more personally and economically free here in Canada, yet you argue our Healthcare model, which is a cornerstone for our personal and economic freedom, must be completely dismantled and replaced with an everyone-for-themselves policy. This in and of itself demonstrates a severe level of confusion.

 

firstly, don't be so emotional. I'm not a sociopath but I'm also not going to fold at the very moment you bring up a personal story like that.

 

Secondly, I don't believe that the charter states that one has a right to the time, resources and liberty of other individuals and if it does then it is wrong.

and yes i do believe we as human beings, by virtue of our birth, are endowed by God with inalienable rights to think freely, speak freely, to the safety of our person and the safety of our property. government should only exist in order to protect these rights and that is it.

 

what i don't believe is that we were born with an inalienable right to infringe on the liberties of any other individual (something which you didn't care about when you forced strangers to take care of your father)

 

and stop repeatedly implying that without socialized medicine we would all drop dead and society would crumble. there is a need for medical services and the market will satisfy that need more efficiently and at a lower cost than any bureaucrats.

[ralk]

and stop repeatedly implying that without socialized medicine we would all drop dead and society would crumble. there is a need for medical services and the market will satisfy that need more efficiently and at a lower cost than any bureaucrats.

 

Exactly. And this is why in the US, health care costs for uninsured individuals, who pay for their medical services out of pocket in an unregulated free market have such low costs!

 

Edit: And their health outcomes are also really good.

 

I should probably put the [/sarcasm] in here too... just in case.

[JohnDakota]

firstly, don't be so emotional. I'm not a sociopath but I'm also not going to fold at the very moment you bring up a personal story like that.

 

lol.. i brought that up to explain how I evolved from a libertarian position, like yours, to a different more socially empathetic position.

 

You're the one that started saying my dad basically enslaved people by developing leukemia. That's a pretty charged/emotional equation to say the least.

 

Secondly, I don't believe that the charter states that one has a right to the time, resources and liberty of other individuals and if it does then it is wrong.

 

It doesn't say so directly, but ensuring those rights also requires certain institutions to exist. Therefore the state must take resources from the population to fund those institutions.

 

 

 

what i don't believe is that we were born with an inalienable right to infringe on the liberties of any other individual (something which you didn't care about when you forced strangers to take care of your father)

 

Oh please. Stop being so dramatic. Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head and saying 'go become a physician/nurse/nurse practitioner/orderly etc... and you're not getting paid a dime!' Physicians et al get compensated quite well for their services here in Canada. To say nothing of the fact that it's their job to take care of the sick. I didn't kidnap anyone. If they don't like their employment conditions they're free to quit. My god.

 

and stop repeatedly implying that without socialized medicine we would all drop dead and society would crumble. there is a need for medical services and the market will satisfy that need more efficiently and at a lower cost than any bureaucrats.

 

Why thank you for telling me what my position is. I was unaware that I said all Canadians would immediately perish the second our healthcare model stopped. I'm so fortunate to have you around.

 

In all seriousness - if you had any understanding of societal issues beyond paraphrasing of Ron Paul, you wouldn't have to tell us what our opinions are so you can fence straw-men. Furthermore you might actually be able to suggest non-binary alternatives to existing models.

[Teflon Don]

lol.. i brought that up to explain how I evolved from a libertarian position, like yours, to a different more socially empathetic position.

 

You're the one that started saying my dad basically enslaved people by developing leukemia. That's a pretty charged/emotional equation to say the least.

 

 

 

It doesn't say so directly, but ensuring those rights also requires certain institutions to exist. Therefore the state must take resources from the population to fund those institutions.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh please. Stop being so dramatic. Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head and saying 'go become a physician/nurse/nurse practitioner/orderly etc... and you're not getting paid a dime!' Physicians et al get compensated quite well for their services here in Canada. To say nothing of the fact that it's their job to take care of the sick. I didn't kidnap anyone. If they don't like their employment conditions they're free to quit. My god.

 

 

 

Why thank you for telling me what my position is. I was unaware that I said all Canadians would immediately perish the second our healthcare model stopped. I'm so fortunate to have you around.

 

In all seriousness - if you had any understanding of societal issues beyond paraphrasing of Ron Paul, you wouldn't have to tell us what our opinions are so you can fence straw-men. Furthermore you might actually be able to suggest non-binary alternatives to existing models.

 

ok can you stop with these incredibly boring and lengthy responses and simply justify your fundamental belief that every person is born with the right to the liberty and property of another person?

stop dodging this fundamental question. if you believe that the ends justify the means and theft is moral so long as you intend to be moral with the money you steal then just go ahead and say it.

 

here let me say it for you:

 

"yes, i believe that it is okay for the government to forcibly take the wealth of certain individuals in society in order to finance the medical expenses of others because in a civilized society we do not let people die from treatable medical conditions. if someones liberty and right to property has to be violated in order to do finance these types of social programs then that is something I'm willing to live with"

 

discussion over.

[ralk]

discussion over.

 

[JohnDakota]

As I've said.. if you actually took some time to understand the complexities of society, and what it means to be a member of it, you wouldn't have to tell people what their opinions are.

 

There is so much more to Rights in a society than the three you keep repeating. There are, of course, fundamental rights, but there are also collective rights and the balance we have in Canada is a calculus that tries to minimizing the infringement on the fundamentals, while ensuring as many Canadians can exercise their fundamental rights effectively.

 

I'm not going to bother trying to explain my position to you anymore. You seem only interested in telling me what my position is, or baiting me in to saying some overly simplistic statement that couldn't possibly address a complex idea like the intersection of Rights and healthcare.

 

Clearly we disagree.. but it's impossible to discuss complicated issues with libertarians that equate taxation with a liquor store robbery and slavery in cotton fields with employment in any economic system other than an unregulated free market. That's why when I was a pure libertarian I never used that language... it simply does not help or accurately represent what happens in Canadian society. These issues have shades - read non-binary - and the only people you are going to convince of your position with that sort of language are existing libertarians or people who know absolutely nothing on the subject - or most subjects for that matter.

 

too long for you?

[Teflon Don]

As I've said.. if you actually took some time to understand the complexities of society, and what it means to be a member of it, you wouldn't have to tell people what their opinions are.

 

There is so much more to Rights in a society than the three you keep repeating. There are, of course, fundamental rights, but there are also collective rights and the balance we have in Canada is a calculus that tries to minimizing the infringement on the fundamentals, while ensuring as many Canadians can exercise their fundamental rights effectively.

 

I'm not going to bother trying to explain my position to you anymore. You seem only interested in telling me what my position is, or baiting me in to saying some overly simplistic statement that couldn't possibly address a complex idea like the intersection of Rights and healthcare.

 

Clearly we disagree.. but it's impossible to discuss complicated issues with libertarians that equate taxation with a liquor store robbery and slavery in cotton fields with employment in any economic system other than an unregulated free market. That's why when I was a pure libertarian I never used that language... it simply does not help or accurately represent what happens in Canadian society. These issues have shades - read non-binary - and the only people you are going to convince of your position with that sort of language are existing libertarians or people who know absolutely nothing on the subject - or most subjects for that matter.

 

too long for you?

 

healthcare is not a right. i have already explained why it isn't in fairly simple terms. the rest of this discussion has been you trying to evade the fundamental question of why you feel entitled to someone elses property.

 

keep dodging

[Leon]

... and simply justify your fundamental belief that every person is born with the right to the liberty and property of another person?

 

Just to play Devil's advocate:

 

With no society and natural selection rampaging, the answer to that would be yes (as in the case of non-human populations).

 

_____________________________________

 

I'm curious why you continue to advocate for an American style system when that very same system is so flawed.

[JohnDakota]

healthcare is not a right.

 

It's not a fundamental one if that's what you're saying.

 

i have already explained why it isn't in fairly simple terms.

 

Ya... because taxation is just the white man's version of a liquor store robbery and working in a semi-socialist system, like we have in Canada, is completely analogous to African American's being enslaved on cotton plantations.... or something.

 

the rest of this discussion has been you trying to evade the fundamental question of why you feel entitled to someone elses property.

 

no.. the rest of the discussion has been me presenting alternative view points to your narrow perspective.. thus you ignore them as if they were never written.

 

again.. please keep telling me about my own position or my own side of the argument. I'm fascinated with how you can debate yourself by using me as a proxy.

 

keep dodging

 

Juked like Reggie.

[Hockeynut]

ok can you stop with these incredibly boring and lengthy responses and simply justify your fundamental belief that every person is born with the right to the liberty and property of another person?

stop dodging this fundamental question. if you believe that the ends justify the means and theft is moral so long as you intend to be moral with the money you steal then just go ahead and say it.

 

here let me say it for you:

 

"yes, i believe that it is okay for the government to forcibly take the wealth of certain individuals in society in order to finance the medical expenses of others because in a civilized society we do not let people die from treatable medical conditions. if someones liberty and right to property has to be violated in order to do finance these types of social programs then that is something I'm willing to live with"

 

discussion over.

 

 

They seem to think it's a Robin Hood model that they're employing. Only difference is that Robin Hood actually stole from people who attained their wealth truly on the backs of others (theft etc) where as the current system takes from those that earned it and gives to those who vote for a "job".

Gotta love people who hid under the guise of helping people when truly they are just stealing from those who drive the economy. When people vote the wealth from the "greedy" into their own hands who is truly being the greedy one?

[Teflon Don]

It's not a fundamental one if that's what you're saying.

 

 

 

Ya... because taxation is just the white man's version of a liquor store robbery and working in a semi-socialist system, like we have in Canada, is completely analogous to African American's being enslaved on cotton plantations.... or something.

 

 

 

no.. the rest of the discussion has been me presenting alternative view points to your narrow perspective.. thus you ignore them as if they were never written.

 

again.. please keep telling me about my own position or my own side of the argument. I'm fascinated with how you can debate yourself by using me as a proxy.

 

 

 

Juked like Reggie.

 

you know what you're right. paying taxes to government to avoid imprisonment is not as bad as a being whipped by a slavemaster.

my government overlords are way better than slavery era plantation owners because they are at least kind enough to only take half of what i earn and not all of it.

 

and thank God we live in a democracy where if you form a large enough constituency the government will steal on your behalf in order to secure your vote.

[Teflon Don]

They seem to think it's a Robin Hood model that they're employing. Only difference is that Robin Hood actually stole from people who attained their wealth truly on the backs of others (theft etc) where as the current system takes from those that earned it and gives to those who vote for a "job"

 

those greedy capitalists always stealing from society and their poor workers. they make so much in profits they should share that wealth with society or at least their workers! you didnt build that it was government who forcibly taxed you and built those pothole ridden roads dammit.

 

what? you want me to take a paycut and delay paying me this month because the company suffered a loss this quarter?

 

hell NO you greedy capitalists! pay for your own losses.

[PhoenixFlare500]

Secondly, I don't believe that the charter states that one has a right to the time, resources and liberty of other individuals and if it does then it is wrong.

and yes i do believe we as human beings, by virtue of our birth, are endowed by God with inalienable rights to think freely, speak freely, to the safety of our person and the safety of our property. government should only exist in order to protect these rights and that is it.

 

what i don't believe is that we were born with an inalienable right to infringe on the liberties of any other individual (something which you didn't care about when you forced strangers to take care of your father)

 

So where do you stand on taking care of children? I'm not a parent but I'm sure any that you talk to (the good ones anyways) would agree that keeping a child alive, let alone raising one well takes a lot of time, resources, and quite possibly infringes on a parent's liberty to go out all the time. It's also important to mention that many children are born into poor families and are therefore poor themselves, not able to afford health care or even food in the kind of system you suggest to be superior. Should we let them waste away on their own powerless to do anything about it? I guess you could put the blame on their parents for being so poor but that doesn't seem fair to a 2-year old. Seems kind of heartless to me.

 

I think your argument really displays a large sense of entitlement to your time, money, your own resources and whatever else you seem to have in this life. My question is to you is, are you really entitled to it? Did you do anything to earn this time or money, or was it your parents that earned it for you (and did your parents get to where they are by themselves or did they have some help to?)? Aren't you inconveniencing your parents by taking up their time and money (see above) to be able to think of entering medical school? The very fact that you're able to post on this forum means you have access to some kind of internet, computer, and had access to a likely free elementary school education (I'm guessing higher) which some teacher who was probably not making billions of dollars provided to you because they decided it's important to keep contributing to the future of society. You also have access to this free forum which allows you to broadcast your thoughts to whoever might read your posts. Would you suggest that Ian should charge every member for using up bandwidth (or whatever the correct term would be, you know what I mean), which he has to pay for in the first place?

 

You should also try to think how you would see the world if you were born into a less privileged family (and yes you are privileged by virtue of being able to talk here). Let's say you were born into a ghetto somewhere, in Canada so it's not too overly terrible and people still say sorry, as in "Sorry I stole your crack pipe". Your father's an alcoholic and beats your mother. Neither of them made it to grade 9. Sex ed wasn't taught very well when they were in school so you also have 4 siblings that your parents have to take care of, because even though they're poor they still think they owe it to you drains on society to not leave you to die and rot in a hole. Your mom has to work two jobs just to keep the money flowing and your dad takes all this money and buys his crack and beer, not really leaving much for you guys. Where do you go from here, putting yourself into this situation? Keep in mind school in your utopia costs $10 000 x the grade number per year and kindergarten is about half that. And we'll say getting a job takes the same requirements as it does in the real world.