- Aug 1, 2006
- 17,630
- 1,304
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
As opposed to the high expectations of liberals like the destruction of our nation for the of globalization?
Upvote
0
As opposed to the high expectations of liberals like the destruction of our nation for the of globalization?
If it can be carried out without the exploitation and abuse of native peoples, workers, and domestic citizens, yes we progressives support a global network of humanityLiberals support globalization.
I can tell by how much it cost me for medical insurance, gas, food, electricity and housing that in truth I'm a slave to those corporate giants that I pay all of my money to. Conservatives like it like that.Why? What exactly is "universal individual freedom", and how does this jell with human interpersonal instincts and social construction? What is 'property', and how/why does it figure into this discussion?
If it can be carried out without the exploitation and abuse of native peoples, workers, and domestic citizens, yes we progressives support a global network of humanity
I beleive in working together and fair trade practices...not giving our soveriegnty (and destroying our national identity) to the likes of the UN or similar organizations.
For medical, real life statics around the world just do not bear that out.Just wait til you see the cost of the basic needs under socialism.
Health Care Is Not A Right
by Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. Delivered at a Town Hall Meeting on the Clinton Health Plan. Red Lion Hotel, Costa Mesa CA. December 11, 1993
Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea -- which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical -- it does not work -- but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. So I'm going to leave it to other speakers to concentrate on the practical flaws in the Clinton health plan. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan -- not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it -- to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance...
What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual rights. The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with -- and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.
Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these...
http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html
For medical, real life statics around the world just do not bear that out.
We have THE most expensive medical health care system in the world with one of the highest child mortality rates among the industialized nations. Per capita we spend twice as much as the next nation. As a part of our we spend 13.6% LINK
.
The truth about "free" health care is that everyone pays, and many are left out due to rationing.