Socrates Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 This is allowing corruption to spread. Free speech shouldnt be tied to your bank account. Because of this, "free speech" and the voice of soooooooo many will be lost because they are poor. And dont try to tell me that funds to campaigns have nothing to do with electoral success. In a free society, citizens ought to free to use or give their money to whoever they want. Additionally, since government bureaucrats appointed by politicians would be in charge of enforcing "campaign finance reform" laws, I see no reason to trust that they would enforce the laws honestly and "fairly" - especially given the abuses of other government bodies such as the IRS for political ends. It's the fox guarding the henhouse. But this debate is on gun rights - let's keep the thread on topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Either way, its a bad move. Our country is more of an oligarchy than anything else these days...and the people in control are the wealthy families and corporations. Our votes dont matter unless they come with a huge wad of cash. our votes matter if people stop being dumb sheep and actually think for themselves and do their own research. People get what they deserve for politicians if they get their facts from commercials and one candidate trashing the other candidate. If they can't spend 1 hour every election season to do their own research on the candidates then they deserve what they get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 our votes matter if people stop being dumb sheep and actually think for themselves and do their own research. People get what they deserve for politicians if they get their facts from commercials and one candidate trashing the other candidate. If they can't spend 1 hour every election season to do their own research on the candidates then they deserve what they get. After a politician is in office, you have no real voice. The best the electorate can do (legally) is threaten to not-re-elect him. Citizens have zero legal status. It doesn't matter how much research you do. There are no consequences for lying to the citizens, unlike when one lies to the state or its agents. The state has the final word in courts run by, you guessed it, the state (assuming it doesn't invoke sovereign immunity). The threat of rebellion can temper the actions of the state, but that threat is remote. Most people see any disobedience as criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God the Father Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 It is the right of every human being to get proper medical care. It is the right of a sick child to get a doctor. Actually it's not, because a doctor is also a human being and has the right not to be coerced to provide care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted April 17, 2014 Author Share Posted April 17, 2014 Actually it's not, because a doctor is also a human being and has the right not to be coerced to provide care. Really? Because the Catechism also says that if the lives of others are in danger and the only way to save them is by killing the person(s) threatening their lives, it is my duty to put my life on the line and do it even if I don't want to. If I'm a doctor and there's a dying child and I decide I don't want to save him, I commit a grave sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God the Father Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Really? Because the Catechism also says that if the lives of others are in danger and the only way to save them is by killing the person(s) threatening their lives, it is my duty to put my life on the line and do it even if I don't want to. If I'm a doctor and there's a dying child and I decide I don't want to save him, I commit a grave sin. That might be true, but the fact that you have free will to choose not to intervene, by default, makes receipt of healthcare a non-right. The fact that the doctor may not be there makes receipt of healthcare a non-right. The fact that your country may have no doctors makes receipt of healthcare a non-right. Rights are what you have when you are alone in the ether, not acting and not being acted upon. Rights exist in the absence of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Really? Because the Catechism also says that if the lives of others are in danger and the only way to save them is by killing the person(s) threatening their lives, it is my duty to put my life on the line and do it even if I don't want to. If I'm a doctor and there's a dying child and I decide I don't want to save him, I commit a grave sin. The doctor having a moral obligation to help a dying person does not equal the dying person having a right to the doctor's help. Different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 I dont like you. Well, hopefully we can overcome our differences and work together in our fight for equality and stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Well, hopefully we can overcome our differences and work together in our fight for equality and stuff. Ill believe it when I see it. :) Recently all youve been contributing to the conversation is cry baby banter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Actually it's not, because a doctor is also a human being and has the right not to be coerced to provide care. actually no because its a basic human right for a person to receive medical care when they are in need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 actually no because its a basic human right for a person to receive medical care when they are in need. Hmmm. Hoy much medical care? Unlimited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Hmmm. Hoy much medical care? Unlimited? life threatening cases. now i am not talking about pay for medical care but just the services. if someone is dying they have a basic human right to receive medical care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 life threatening cases. now i am not talking about pay for medical care but just the services. if someone is dying they have a basic human right to receive medical care. Multiple kidney transplants woul qualify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Multiple kidney transplants woul qualify? would the kidneys already be avaliable or are we talking about taking them from people? also are we talking about someone needing a transplant now, like they will die in a day or 2 or they need one eventually? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 actually no because its a basic human right for a person to receive medical care when they are in need. So what is the limit of force? If the doctor refuses to provide care, then what may a person do to force him, or to punish him if he does not? And are there any reciprocal obligations? Is it not incumbent upon those seeking care to compensate the doctor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now