6 ms·

and if left to "we should all be treated fairly/you have to pay for MY health care" proponents would mean ... sorry, what was the question again? Nope, didn't

and if left to "we should all be treated fairly/you have to pay for MY health care" proponents would mean ... sorry, what was the question again? Nope, didn't add to the argument at all...

derleth 14y ago
> we should all be treated fairly/you have to pay for MY health care How about "we should all be treated fairly/you have to pay for MY military"? Is that fair?
- AutoCorrect 14y ago
  actually, it is. What is not good is the use being made of the military by the former and current CIC's.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > actually, it is. Why is a socialized military fair when a socialized healthcare system would not be?
coldtea 14y ago
Well, I'm not for "you have to pay for MY health care". I'm for: "you have to pay to build a sustainable health care system that encompasses the whole of society, including YOUR health care, and I don't care if you are a rich prick who doesn't care about others".
- AutoCorrect 14y ago
  you mean, you're for enforced servitude. I get it - slavery is back in style, because that's what it is when you take from one person to give to another, no matter what the relative positions of the two persons are.
  - derleth 14y ago
    Enforced servitude is when I'm forced to work to make money to fund your military.
  - coldtea 14y ago
    >you mean, you're for enforced servitude. No, I'm for democracy with the full original meaning of the word (as in ancient Athens), which includes a full list of obligations from each and every citizen to his city-state and all of his fellow citizens. The word for individual that didn't want to contribute to their state, in ancient Athens, was "idiot" (literally: private), and it meant both the "private citizen" (a citizen involved only in his private affairs) and the imbecile. That's where we got the word "idiot" from, and I find it very appropriate. >I get it - slavery is back in style, because that's what it is when you take from one person to give to another, no matter what the relative positions of the two persons are. No, it very much matters what the relative positions of the two persons are. It makes all the difference in the world. For example, the rich slave owners in the South should not just have their slaves freed. They should also have had to share their estate between their slaves (the very persons that were the unpaid source of his wealth until then). That way we wouldn't have to wait until 1950 to end segregation, nor we would have the problem of piss poor black families going forward (and the crime that goes with that), or Jim Crow laws.

and if left to "we should all be treated fairly/you have to pay for MY health care" proponents would mean ... sorry, what was the question again? Nope, didn't add to the argument at all...

derleth 14y ago

> we should all be treated fairly/you have to pay for MY health care How about "we should all be treated fairly/you have to pay for MY military"? Is that fair?

AutoCorrect 14y ago
actually, it is. What is not good is the use being made of the military by the former and current CIC's.
- derleth 14y ago
  > actually, it is. Why is a socialized military fair when a socialized healthcare system would not be?

coldtea 14y ago

Well, I'm not for "you have to pay for MY health care". I'm for: "you have to pay to build a sustainable health care system that encompasses the whole of society, including YOUR health care, and I don't care if you are a rich prick who doesn't care about others".

AutoCorrect 14y ago
you mean, you're for enforced servitude. I get it - slavery is back in style, because that's what it is when you take from one person to give to another, no matter what the relative positions of the two persons are.
- derleth 14y ago
  Enforced servitude is when I'm forced to work to make money to fund your military.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >you mean, you're for enforced servitude. No, I'm for democracy with the full original meaning of the word (as in ancient Athens), which includes a full list of obligations from each and every citizen to his city-state and all of his fellow citizens. The word for individual that didn't want to contribute to their state, in ancient Athens, was "idiot" (literally: private), and it meant both the "private citizen" (a citizen involved only in his private affairs) and the imbecile. That's where we got the word "idiot" from, and I find it very appropriate. >I get it - slavery is back in style, because that's what it is when you take from one person to give to another, no matter what the relative positions of the two persons are. No, it very much matters what the relative positions of the two persons are. It makes all the difference in the world. For example, the rich slave owners in the South should not just have their slaves freed. They should also have had to share their estate between their slaves (the very persons that were the unpaid source of his wealth until then). That way we wouldn't have to wait until 1950 to end segregation, nor we would have the problem of piss poor black families going forward (and the crime that goes with that), or Jim Crow laws.